Cathy McGowan (Indi, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was three-quarters of the way through this speech on Thursday when we ran out of time, so I am continuing today. I had been acknowledging the CLAN group of care leavers in my electorate. I had been talking about the impact of the royal commission and, in particular, the impact of the diocese of Sandhurst, which is in my electorate. I had got to the stage in my speech where I was talking about the role of alternative models of redress that were being used by the Victorian Women's Trust and I was about to outline three principles that the Victorian Women's Trust has found useful. They talked about them in their publication The paradox of service. The three main principles that they use are: having a champion in your corner, transparency of institutionalised responses and education about the nature of abuse.

I will take a few minutes to talk about the importance of having a champion in your corner. The Victorian Women's Trust talks about the experience they've had with nuns who have left religious orders. The trust talks about their ability to advocate on behalf of the nuns to get appropriate redress. They said that each of the formerly religious people have been able to rely every step of the way on having an advocate who is trusted and effective in representing their position and in their efforts to gain some personal relief.

The trust also talks about a significant aspect of this experience: religious orders have come some way in profound recognition for past hurt. In a large measure this is because they've not just had to listen in the right spirit to the formerly religious people but also had to deal with trusted brokers with a commitment to see some form of redress. That seems to me to be a really important element in what we're trying do with the survivors that we're addressing today with this redress system: the need to have a champion in your corner—someone who'll stand up for you.

The second principle is the transparency of institutionalised responses. It can't just be done in private. We need public recognition from our institutions that serious hurt has been caused, that they are going to make appropriate changes to the way they do things and that they are going to work with survivors to improve the situation—not just to make it better, but to actually improve the situation. While I understand some of the institutions have gone some way in this regard, I think there is a lot more in terms of humility and in terms of practical signs of sorrow that they could show to our survivors.

The third principle is education about the nature of abuse. Again, this is a major area I think we need to do a whole lot more work on, particularly the major religious institutions. There are many recommendations in the royal commission about what the institutions should do to improve the education, the culture and the understanding within our institutions about what causes abuse, why it happens and to then make the necessary changes that it never ever happens again.

In bringing my comments to a close, I would really like to acknowledge the work of the care leavers in my electorate, to Rhonda and her team—what a fantastic job you've done—and to say how grateful I am for the work that they do. My final comment is to use the dictionary definition of 'redress'. Redress means to rectify, to repair, to cure and to heal. My hope is that, in passing this legislation, we are able to do that in some way to the many, many survivors of our institutions. I'd like to finish by acknowledging, honouring and thanking them for their resilience, their persistence, their empathy, their tolerance, their patience and, most of all, their courage.

Richard Marles (Corio, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

With a degree of concern and with a heavy dose of sadness, but ultimately with a complete sense of amazement, I stand here today in support of the National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Bill 2018. I've been connected to the issue of those fellow Australians—half a million of them—who grew up in orphanages around Australia for as long as any issue I've been connected with in this place. Indeed, I started my connection with this issue prior to becoming elected to the House of Representatives. I was the preselected candidate for the electorate of Corio when Leonie Sheedy, director of the Care Leavers Australia Network, affectionately known as CLAN, rang me and told me about this issue. She said I had an obligation to make this a key part of my work in this place and she invited me to become a patron of CLAN. This was out of the blue. I wasn't sure what to make of this phone call, but, after two hours, I absolutely signed up.

The basis on which she said I had a particular obligation to become a patron of CLAN was the particular story of Geelong—the city on which my electorate is based—as to those who grew up in orphanages. There were more orphanages in Geelong than in any other non-capital city in Australia. That means, I suppose, that today there is a higher proportion of those who have grown up in orphanages in my electorate than in perhaps any other in the country. The issue of those people who have been in orphanages and the abuse that they have suffered is a national story, but there is a very strong Geelong story which is a part of it. It became clear to me that being a patron of CLAN was something that I needed to do.

It was also a point of connection with an existing member of the class of 2007, Jason Clare, the member for Blaxland, who also knew Leonie Sheedy and became a patron of CLAN at the same time. Very quickly, Jason and I teamed up in providing advocacy around this issue. Now there are many people in this place and in the other place who are patrons of CLAN.

Those who grew up in orphanages suffered sexual abuse, as has been outlined by the royal commission. But it was more than that. People were removed from their families—often from situations of no more than simple poverty—and placed in large institutions where there was an absence of familial love. The point that Leonie made to me is that the overwhelming, consistent feature that has been experienced by everyone who has grown up in an orphanage is that: an absence of familial love—not being seen as being special to anyone, which is at the heart of a healthy childhood and something that those of us who have grown up in families take completely for granted.

In 2009, along with Steve Irons, the member for Swan, and Senator Claire Moore, we worked with the minister for family and community services at the time, the member for Jagajaga, on having an apology made to the forgotten Australians and the former child migrants. This occurred in 2009 in this building, and it was a remarkable day—a day soaked with tears, but a day on which, for the first time, people who had horrendous stories, which they had been telling all their lives and which, by and large, had not been listened to, finally were acknowledged as having told the truth.

In November 2012, the then Gillard government followed up the apology by announcing the establishment of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. The final report of that royal commission was handed down in December of last year. It recommends the establishment of a national redress scheme, which is, of course, the subject of the bill that we are debating today.

The royal commission was a remarkable phenomenon for the country and for those who participated in it, many of whom I have spoken to. It was a place of pain. It was an unexpected place, which took this story in directions that none of us thought it would go. But ultimately it was a place of healing. The ability to have individual stories told and listened to and acted upon was deeply powerful. To this day, I think that the royal commission stands as one of the lasting achievements of the Gillard government.

So, as I stand here today, I'm filled with emotion. I'm filled with emotion about the journey that it has taken to get to this point. I'm filled with emotion in thinking about the people who I've met along the way—people who, when you look at the cards that they were dealt in life, were given a horrendous set of options for their life and yet faced up to them with enormous bravery and determination and, in the process, changed our nation. They are the bravest people I have met in this role. They are the people from whom I have taken the most inspiration in what I do here. This makes this debate that's going on in the House today enormously significant.

I do have mixed emotions, because there are aspects of this legislation which are not perfect. The quantum which is being provided via this legislation is $50,000 less than that which was recommended by the royal commission. It's a pity that the full $200,000 was not provided as the cap. The indexation provision for those people who have received payouts via other actions previously feels unfair. That indexation over a number of years, measured against what payment may be available through this process, may see some people getting not much at all. It would be better if that were changed. Part of the story, very sadly, of those who have grown up in orphanages, those who have suffered sexual abuse as children, is the path that it set them on in their lives, and often that is a path that has led to incarceration for themselves. It is a very significant number. It is a community that is overrepresented in our custodial institutions, and that people with significant criminal records will be prevented from gaining compensation through this redress scheme is also a pity. It denies a fundamental justice to people who started their lives with profound bad luck. The other point to make—and it goes back to the terms of reference for the royal commission to begin with—is that this only relates to people who have suffered sexual abuse. There were, of course, so many other forms of abuse which occurred for people in orphanages, and they are not part of this scheme.

That said, this redress scheme, and that it will be happening on 1 July this year, is hugely significant. It is a hugely significant moment, and I can barely believe that, from the time that Leonie Sheedy first said to me that this is what needed to occur, and it seemed to me unlikely that it ever would, we stand here in this place in a bipartisan way, knowing that a national redress scheme will be in place from 1 July this year for those who grew up in orphanages who suffered child sexual abuse. Of all that I've seen in this place over the last decade, that is as remarkable a set of events and as remarkable an achievement as I have witnessed, and I spend a moment to contemplate that.

I want to acknowledge the Minister for Social Services, the member for Wannon, for what he has done in bringing the redress scheme to a point of conclusion, to a point of operation. He deserves credit. I want to acknowledge the member for Jagajaga. From the outset, she was the person who carried the policy debate. She did so with wisdom and practicality, but she did so with an enormous sense of purpose, and her judgements in dealing with difficult issues were done with a sincerity and an integrity which represent a form of inspiration, I think, for all of us in this place who seek to represent Australians through the political process. She is an inspiration for our calling.

I want to acknowledge Leonie Sheedy, who is the head of CLAN. She is a force of nature. Her own story is tragic, and she has had her own personal demons to deal with throughout her life, and it would have been understandable if it had taken her down a more destructive road. But instead she has created a phenomenon. She is compassionate, she is generous, she has empathy, she has determination, and the number of hours that she has spent listening to the stories of those who have suffered renders her an angel. The achievement of the national redress scheme is as much hers as it is that of any person in this nation, and she deserves to be very much acknowledged at this moment.

But I want, finally, to remember her brother Anthony Sheedy, because Anthony is a person who will miss out. Anthony was dealt just the most appalling set of cards during his life in orphanages, and this was detailed in a wonderful piece written by Danny Lannen in the Geelong Advertiser. He says Anthony:

… became state ward 69411 and his 16-year journey to adulthood was spent within 10 institutions, including Geelong's St Augustine's boys home.

He entered these institutions at the age of two. Anthony tells this story from when he was 12:

"I first saw my parents at 12 years when they came to see me at St Augustine's. I didn't believe the Christian brother who told me to go upstairs to get dressed to see your parents.

"I said no because I didn't think they were my real parents. So I got the strap by the Brother and forced by his hand to go to the front door.

"My mother said 'Why are you crying?' I said 'Brother hit me for being naughty', as this is what the Brother had told me to say."

That was not the beginning, at the age of 12, of a wonderful homecoming: Anthony's parents left that day and he stayed at St Augustine's. He continued to live there.

Danny takes the story up again of Anthony, aged 15. He said:

He told of being held in solitary confinement at Melbourne's Turana home, forced to sleep on a mattress with no blanket, and of being transferred as a young teen by train from Turana to Bendigo Training Centre in handcuffs.

He told of beatings and sexual abuse by fellow state wards and the people charged with his care …

That began a life that Anthony lived on the edge. For 30 years—for 30 years!—he didn't see any of his siblings. It was a life that was soaked with alcohol, which he ultimately weaned himself off in his late 40s because he had seen so many others go down a path of ultimate destruction by pursuing the drink. He said:

"My life has been terrible. I have been lonely just about all my life until I was 62 years old.

It was at that age that he opened, after six months, a letter that had been sent by his sister Leonie, who was in search of him. It gave him nine years of comfort, a number of which were spent volunteering in my office. The person we knew was actually cheeky, he was cheerful, he was diligent, he was a keen supporter of the Geelong Football Club, he loved Frank Sinatra and he loved talking about Frank. In fact, he would continue to talk as much as we would let him talk.

On 22 June 2011, Anthony died very suddenly. He died on the very day that a letter, sent by his lawyers, for a settlement conference for compensation had arrived at his house. He will not get compensation. He is one of thousands of those who grew up in orphanages for whom 1 July is too late. This is a day on which we need to remember Anthony and everyone like him. Ultimately, for its failings, this scheme is a huge achievement for this country; it will make an enormous difference for thousands of Australians. In the process, though, today I remember Anthony Sheedy.

Ms Catherine King (Ballarat, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Health and Medicare) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I join with many colleagues in this place to talk on the National Redress Scheme, and I want to commend the member for Corio for his contribution. Anthony's story is one of many, many, many that men and women have told. Anthony is one of many who went through appalling abuse in our orphanages and our institutions whom we have lost and for whom this compensation scheme, this redress scheme, comes too late. It is their voices we hear echoing through this chamber, and it is important that we have resolve to get this done.

My community of Ballarat, of course, knows too well the legacy of child sexual abuse. There have been countless cases highlighted through the royal commission. The Ballarat cases warranted their own part of the commission's inquiry, their own booklet as part of the inquiry, as there were so many of them. There will be others who have never come forward to this day and have never spoken about their abuse, and there are many others who we have lost to suicide or early death. Our community has had an incredibly deep hurt inflicted through its heart, a hurt that lingers to this day and will take generations to heal. Child sexual abuse hurts everyone in a community. It affects every one of us, from the children growing to adults through to their children and their partners. It affects our police, our welfare workers and our teachers—all of us. That is why the royal commission has been so important: shining a light on what has occurred and providing a powerful symbol to the many, many survivors, that they are heard and believed across the breadth and the depth of this nation—that we believe you.

At hearings across the country, the royal commission heard from tens of thousands of Australians and shone a light on a shameful part of our history—a part of our history that has been ignored and denied for too long. In Ballarat I attended these hearings and I saw personally both the hurt and the strength of those who told their stories. I echo the member for Corio's words, that these men and women are some of the bravest people I know. There was the sight of some of these men attending Rome when Cardinal George Pell had been unable, or unwilling, to attend Australia to be part of those hearings. The survivors in Ballarat went to Rome to highlight that case and to speak with him, to encourage him to come and tell what he knew. They are some of the bravest people I know.

Of course, when Prime Minister Gillard established the royal commission, it was more than about symbols. It was established to provide redress and to make changes across all policy areas to ensure the protection of children and to make sure this does not happen again. In recognition of this important role, the commission deliberately handed down an interim report on redress so that the policy work on implementing such a scheme was not delayed. While this legislation has been a long time coming, it's an important step. And while I respect the complexity of negotiating such a scheme on behalf of the many people of my electorate who this affects directly, it would be remiss of me not to point out its shortcomings.

This is not the redress scheme recommended by the royal commission. When I talk to survivors, there are several things that they tell me. One is that the constant retelling of their stories to health professional after health professional and counsellor after counsellor perpetuates the harm. They need ongoing, lifelong access to counselling and other health services that provide them with dignity and continuity of care. They need recognition financially that many have lost jobs, housing and financial security—if they were ever able to get these in the first place—and it's been a direct result of the trauma that they experienced. This scheme does some of that, but falls well short of what many in the community need and expected.

While we are still trying from this side to seek improvements to this legislation, we are deeply conscious that many survivors have already been waiting too long and that the scheme is due to start on 1 July. My criticisms of the scheme are already on record, but they include, firstly, the government's decision to allow states and institutions to opt in, which, in essence, handed over all of the negotiating power to them. It's resulted in the Commonwealth having to make substantial concessions to get them into the scheme. We still do not have all states or institutions in.

There is no excuse for any of these bodies not to sign up to this scheme. No institution could possibly justify a decision not to offer the redress that means so much to more than 60,000 survivors of institutional sexual abuse. The failure of some institutions to sign up to the scheme adds a further hurdle to many survivors. The failure of some institutions means that, despite no recommendation from the royal commission, the government's bill states that only one application to the redress scheme can be made for each survivor. That means that some survivors may have to make the difficult choice of whether to delay pursuing a claim in the hope that all institutions responsible for the abuse sign up, or deciding to access redress when only one or some of them have opted in. This would be a particularly difficult decision for the survivors who are nearing the later years of their lives.

Secondly, one of the concessions that the government has made to get states and institutions into the scheme has resulted in the maximum cap for redress claims being watered down. Whereas the royal commission recommended a $200,000 maximum for redress claims, the bills before the House specifically say that the maximum available will be $150,000. This amount is important not only because of the possibility that the amount of redress offers but because those who accept an offer of redress made under the scheme will lose their right to make a civil claim against the institutions responsible for their abuse. I've heard countless stories of survivors of abuse who have never been able to work or who have in later years lost jobs and businesses and are suffering from significant financial insecurity. While redress is not a compensation scheme, it should also not be so low as to afford little recognition of this harm. The issue of indexation of previous payments made is also of significant concern, meaning that there will be some recipients who are entitled to redress actually ending up receiving absolutely nothing, because of the indexation of past payments.

One of the more contentious measures of the original legislation has been improved but is still of concern. The government has now allowed that people imprisoned for five years or more may be considered eligible for the scheme so long as providing the person with redress does not bring the scheme into disrepute. As someone who spent the early part of their career working with people in prisons and youth training centres, I get it—they have often done terrible acts and committed unforgivable crimes—but I also know that very few of them that I worked with had not experienced some form of abuse, some of them sexual abuse, while in the care of institutions. There is considerable evidence that a history of childhood abuse and trauma can increase the likelihood that an adult will engage in criminal behaviour. The later decisions and crimes of these survivors do nothing to negate the abuse that they as innocent children suffered. This childhood trauma may have been a significant cause that led to their later crimes. These bills seek to potentially deny them justice and redress.

Thirdly, the bills also go against the recommendations of the royal commission regarding access to counselling. The commission recommended access to counselling and psychological care be provided for the rest of their lives if required and not be limited to a lump sum payment. These bills fall far short of this. The bills state that either counselling will be provided through an existing state service for the life of the scheme or a payment for counselling of up to $5,000 will be made to the survivor. This is one of the key areas I think the government needs to rethink. Survivors who've suffered abuse at the hands of state-run institutions may not be able to or wish to use state- or institution-run services. This needs to be taken into account by states when delivering these services. In such a case, the $5,000 payment will not be adequate to provide access to lifelong support. As I said at the commencement of my contribution, it is this issue that is so important to ensuring the future health and wellbeing of survivors. The government has not got this right in this legislation. It is deeply unfair and it does not recognise the incredible harm done.

Labor has long argued that the recommendations of the royal commission should be implemented as intended and that no changes be made that limit the benefits the scheme offers to survivors around Australia. In light of these many concerns, Labor has referred these bills to a Senate inquiry so that the community can be consulted more thoroughly before a vote is taken. As a gesture of good faith in our ongoing discussions with the government to resolve these concerns and in acknowledgement of our longstanding commitment to the establishment of a national redress scheme, Labor will support, as the member for Jagajaga said, the bills in the House today, but we need to do much better.

On 24 May in my local newspaper, the Ballarat Courier, some survivors spoke about their disappointment with the redress scheme. As I conclude my contribution I want to quote from that so that their voices are heard here in this chamber. Gary Sculley said:

The redress is quite poor in a way, going against a lot of the Royal Commission recommendations and whittling it down to the point where it is insulting.

…   …   …

Survivors are put in a position now where it's basically take the redress, go away and die; it is appalling …

Stephen Woods said that there is so much frustration and anger. He said:

The survivors and families … we are all still holding on.

Like so many others, my life has been a small percentage of the potential I have, of what I could have achieved.

They are important words for us to hear. Whilst I don't want to underestimate the moment that we have here of actually achieving a national redress scheme, I have to speak for the many voices of the men and women of my community who have been so deeply affected. This isn't the scheme that the royal commission recommended. We do need to do better, particularly in the area of access to counselling and other healthcare services for the lives of these men and women. We know many of them have been deeply traumatised by what happened and are deeply traumatised still to this day. Every day of the commission, and every day this is debated in this place, more and more of them talk about the harm done. They are exhausted by the process. They want us to get this done, but they also want to make sure that what we do is right by them.

As I say, whilst we'll support these bills, it's important for us to hear where the scheme needs to be improved, and it's important for us to hear the words of the many survivors. It's important for us to remember that, whilst the commission has done its work and it's concluded its work, ours has only just started and we still have a very long way to go. I thank the House.

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to contribute also to this important debate on the National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Bill 2018 and the associated National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2018. Together these bills establish a national redress scheme which, to a very large extent, mirrors the recommendations made by the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, an inquiry that was established by the former Gillard Labor government back in 2012 to investigate decades of the most appalling sexual abuse and terrible violence in institutions across Australia.

I want to acknowledge at the outset that, if it were not for the courage, tenacity and persistence of survivors, this royal commission would not have happened and we would not be standing here debating the creation of a national redress scheme in the Australian parliament today. To the survivors, I want to say: while we took far too long to respond to your pain and suffering, to expose the nature and extent of the systemic violence, abuse and cover-ups, and to ensure that your voices were heard and believed, the establishment of a national redress scheme is a critical part of the healing process for both you and, indeed, our nation. The scheme before the parliament today will give victims and survivors of child sexual abuse access to three elements of redress, including a monetary payment, access to counselling and psychological services, and the opportunity to have a direct personal apology from the institution responsible for the abuse.

The life and work of the Royal Commission is deeply embedded in the Newcastle and Hunter region. In communities that I and my neighbouring Labor colleagues live in and represent, there are few who don't know somebody who bears the scars of this appalling abuse, perpetrated by the very organisations that should have protected them as children. Indeed, a lot of the reporting that helped build the case for the royal commission was printed over many years in the pages of my local newspaper, the Newcastle Herald. Much of that was written by the Herald journalist Joanne McCarthy, who pursued one of the most formidable investigations of abuse on behalf of local victims and survivors. Over many hundreds of articles, Ms McCarthy documented terrible cases of both abhorrent abuse and callous, cynical cover-ups by many of the most respected people in some of the most trusted institutions in our community. This truly was journalism at its finest, and in today's era of fake news we must never forget the critically important role that a free press has in shining a light in the darkest corners of our society and calling wrongdoers to account.

The shocking cases that were uncovered by Ms McCarthy, along with revelations from a local detective inspector, Peter Fox, contributed significantly to the former Prime Minister Julia Gillard's decision to launch the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse in November 2012. This was a marathon campaign, and I again pay my tributes to all of those people who found the courage to speak out at a time when their voices were at best questioned and, indeed, many times rebuked.

In launching the royal commission, Prime Minister Gillard gave a voice to the tens of thousands of survivors of abuse, who not only had their childhoods ripped away from them but who had been repeatedly accused of malice or deceit when they dared to speak out. The royal commission allowed survivors to tell their stories, without judgement, for the first time. In doing so, it lifted the veil of secrecy and revealed shameful systemic abuse, enabled by an insidious culture of cover-ups that lay deep at the heart of so many religious institutions, not-for-profit bodies and state care providers and agencies.

Since 2012, more than 16,000 people have made contact with the commission and it heard more than 8,000 personal stories face to face. It is a dangerous path to single out any voice in that royal commission but I do want to pay a special tribute to former Anglican bishop Greg Thompson, who, in the course of his duty of trying to take care of a diocese reeling from the trauma that was being spoken of on a daily basis in front of the royal commission and in our media, revealed that he too was a victim of child sexual abuse—had been groomed through the Anglican Church and abused by the very people in the diocese he later came to govern as bishop. I raise that case because Bishop Greg Thompson knows full well the impact of people who questioned your motives for talking about that abuse. He was dealt great resistance from the diocese he represented. It is to my great sorrow and regret that we, as a community, were clearly unable to provide him with enough support to remain in that role. He has now retired and I have no doubt he will go on to ensure that justice and redress are sought, and he'll continue that work in many ways. It is one example of just how difficult cultural change comes in these institutions, that we were unable to lend the support required for him to retain his role when he dared speak up, when he drew a line saying zero tolerance to sexual abuse in the diocese of Newcastle. When he insisted that the culture of the Anglican diocese had to change, the resistance and pushback he felt were astonishing.

My community is now under the leadership of a new bishop, who, thankfully, shares many of those concerns. I know he will be working tirelessly to ensure that the diocese of Newcastle is reformed so that the culture that enabled that abuse to take place, that enabled that silence to be normalised in some way, is intolerable. The community will not stand for it any more and the church must change. They know that and I know they are making serious attempts to do that. But everybody is on notice that the entire community is watching very carefully the institutional cultural changes that must happen.

As a result of the royal commission, more than 2,500 individuals were reported to authorities and it's estimated there are some 60,000 victims and survivors of abuse that occurred in as many as 4,000 institutions across the country. Those figures are just staggering. The extent and the scale of that systemic abuse is truly shocking. This was reiterated in the final report, which stretches to tens of thousands of pages across 17 volumes and contains more than 400 recommendations. Eighty-two of the final recommendations related directly to the establishment of a National Redress Scheme as a fundamental right of survivors and a critical part of the healing process.

As I mentioned earlier, the courage of survivors who shared their stories cannot be overstated. Their contribution to calling out and putting an end to appalling systemic abuse will never be forgotten. Now, it is time for justice to be delivered. While no-one suggests that the redress scheme can make up for the pain and trauma of the past, it will lay foundations; it is the start of our making amends. In establishing this scheme, we must be unswervingly focused on ensuring that every decision we make is in the best interests of the victims and survivors of this abuse. That is the prism through which we must consider this bill and all of the work we do in this space. I understand that the bill before us today is the outcome of negotiated agreements with the New South Wales and Victorian governments. It will supersede the earlier Commonwealth legislation. Every state, aside from Western Australia, has now signed up to the scheme, which is excellent news. The scheme, of course, only works if it is truly national. I again welcome the calls this morning from some of the Anglican churches and others who are urging all of their groups across the nation to sign up to this scheme.

Labor was first to announce support for a national redress scheme when it was recommended by the royal commission's interim report back in 2015. We know that the victims and survivors of child sexual abuse in institutions waited decades for that royal commission, and we know that they should not be waiting any longer than necessary for an adequate and just scheme to be put in place. As previous speakers have said before me, whilst Labor will be supporting the bills before us, it is not without concern and there are some very real areas that need further investigation, on behalf of government, to make this redress scheme the very best it can be. One of those areas is the issue around the maximum redress value. We know the royal commission recommended that be set at $200,000. This bill only allows for a monetary value of $150,000. I remain unconvinced by the government's argument that this can't be revisited, and I would strongly urge some rethinking in this area.

Likewise, the issue of indexation is proving to be extremely problematic for survivors. Certainly, under this bill, any payment offered under the redress scheme would take into account any payments received for institutional child sexual abuse. Whilst that component is fair, the notion that we would somehow be indexing those payments over time has very real implications for survivors, where we may in fact end up in a situation where there is virtually nothing left in the redress scheme for those people. A payment indexed annually for decades-old payments could see survivors ending up with a pittance, and that would be an unjust outcome. I don't think anybody in this chamber thinks that's a fair outcome. That needs some rethinking from the government. On the time frames for acceptance, I'd also like to see the government reconsider the period of time that survivors are given to decide whether to accept a redress offer or not. While the royal commission recommended a year, this bill only allows for six months.

The other area of concern for Labor is the decision that survivors who have been given a custodial sentence of five years or more must apply for special permission in order to access the scheme. We believe this is unfair. I know that there are some very difficult cases that the redress scheme will have to deal with; I've no doubt about that. As much of the evidence made clear in the royal commission, people weren't offenders when they were children; they were just children who were sexually abused and they went on to lead lives of great trauma. For many, many reasons, there is an incredibly disproportionate group of survivors of child sexual abuse who now find themselves in the criminal justice system. The idea of somehow excluding those people from the redress scheme is unfair and problematic, and I think that the government would do well to revisit that decision

The final issue I now raise relates to the provision of counselling. Under the royal commission's recommendations, survivors would have access to counselling and psychological services for as long as they need. I cannot stress enough the importance of that. People need lifetime access, because we have no idea whether people are going to need access in six months time or 10 years time. That should be available to people in the same way as we don't ask veterans to put a time limit on post-traumatic stress; we enable free and lifelong access. The same privilege should be afforded to victims of child sexual abuse. I trust the government will work with Labor on all these matters and also the issue of the funder of last resort. We will support this bill but will continue to work tirelessly with the government for a fairer and more just outcome for victims of child sexual abuse.

Amanda Rishworth (Kingston, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Veterans' Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very pleased to be able to have the opportunity to speak in this debate, as this issue about the effect that child sexual abuse in institutions around this country has had has been something that I have worked with survivors in my own electorate to address, discuss and shed light upon. I was incredibly proud to stand as part of the Gillard government in 2013 when we announced the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. Many people had been calling for this for some time. Quite frankly, once we saw the outcome of that royal commission, as the evidence and information provided started to snowball, it galvanised everyone's view that this was so important, timely and critical. Over five years the commission held 57 public hearings over 44 days, and heard evidence from more than 1,300 witnesses.

I need to place on record here thanks to all of those that shared their personal stories. It is really hard to talk about yourself. As politicians we come in here and advocate on behalf of others; it is much more confronting to talk about your own personal experiences, especially when they are such private experiences that have been associated with such difficulties, personal shame and a whole range of other emotions. It is so difficult to talk about those, and I need to acknowledge here in this place those survivors that got up and were able to share their stories. When I spoke to a number of those survivors, I found that their motivation wasn't for themselves; it was to make sure that this never happened again, that no other child had to endure what they had to endure. I think that needs to be placed on the record—that this was for many a very brave and difficult moment, motivated by not only telling their story and seeking justice for themselves but also trying to make sure that this never happened again. I would like to thank on record all of those that were brave enough to tell their story.

I would also like to thank all those advocates who, even before the royal commission, had been advocating so powerfully for these stories to come out, for government to do something to address the wrongs of the past. Many organisations have been part of that. CLAN, led by Leonie Sheedy, has been one of those. They have done an amazing job at ensuring that governments dealt with this issue instead of forgetting it, ignoring it or pushing it under the carpet. I place on record my great thanks to them because, as a result of their bravery and advocacy, we now have these important pieces of legislation before the House today.

The National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Bill 2018 and the National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2018 are critically important, and I am very pleased to be supporting them today. I am pleased that the majority of states and territories have come on board. It does need to be a national redress scheme, so I would absolutely urge that the government continues to negotiate with those states that have not signed up and that it continues to pursue this. We need a truly national redress scheme. We also need a redress scheme that is in line with the recommendation of the royal commission. Labor were very clear once the recommendation came out from the royal commission that we supported a national redress scheme. We were very clear about it, and that is why we want to work constructively with the government to make sure that it comes to fruition.

Labor has some concerns, and I certainly have some concerns, with the current bill. In particular, most of us are concerned about the limitation on access to counselling for the survivors. I think anyone who listened to the stories that were presented to the royal commission and who spoke with any of those individuals would have to acknowledge that this abuse has had lifelong consequences. It has affected many, many aspects of those individuals' lives. There is grief that comes with it about 'what could have been'. 'What could my life have been like without this terrible situation that happened to me?' 'What have I lost as a result?' It is a deeply difficult issue to deal with. I don't think it's too much to ask that those individuals get proper access to counselling in a way that actually helps them address the issues that they face. Therefore, I absolutely understand that the royal commission did recommend that recipients of redress be able to access counselling for the rest of their life. However, this bill only provides access to state-provided services for the length of the scheme or a payment of up to $5,000 to be put towards counselling.

As I have said, these circumstances are woefully inadequate. I certainly join with the shadow minister and the rest of Labor to call on the government to give assurances that this will be addressed. I think survivors often consider that government is responsible for their abuse and do not wish to use state or institution-run services, and this does need to be taken into account by the states when delivering services. This is something which we do need to work on with our state colleagues to address. For survivors who receive the $5,000 payment, this amount of money will not provide adequate access to services. So I call on the government and urge the government, as previous speakers have done, to seriously address this issue. We need to seriously look at the upper limit that we place on the amount of redress. The upper limit set by this bill is $150,000. The royal commission recommends that the maximum payment be $200,000. I guess we need to understand the logic that the government has made for not implementing the full recommendation. Why aren't we seeing the royal commission's recommendation in full and why aren't we seeing the maximum payment of $200,000?

Also, we have concerns that the bill gives applicants only six months to make this decision, while the royal commission recommends a year. Once again, it is unclear as to why the government has chosen this limit. I think we do need to acknowledge that, for many people, this is a deeply distressing process. It is difficult to take that first step, to take the second step or to take the third step in the redress process. So, limiting this time does put, I think, a large amount of pressure on individuals that is just not necessary. Why will the government not just accept the royal commission's 12-month period? There are a number of other issues that have been raised, and certainly I support Labor's concerns in this regard. We want to see the government work in way in which we can actually achieve a really good step towards a truly national redress scheme.

In conclusion, I want to draw the House's attention to an area that was a direct result of the Commonwealth's mismanagement. A lot of the institutionalised sexual abuse that we saw was in churches and other religious institutions, as well as in state-run institutions. But, of course, the royal commission also looked into and examined the Department of Defence, and the ADF's responses to allegations of child sexual abuse at some of the institutions that were directly operated by the Commonwealth and the ADF. They concluded that from the 1960s to 1972 the system of management at HMAS Leeuwin was ineffective in preventing and responding to child sexual abuse. The Royal Navy failed in its duty to care for junior recruits who were children.

It was also found that there was a failure to adequately address harmful bullying conduct and that the culture of intimidation by older apprentices and staff represented a failure in duty of care by the Army to provide a safe environment for junior apprentices at the Australian Army Apprentices School at Balcombe. Further, during the 1970s and 1980s the system of management at Balcombe was ineffective in preventing and responding to abuse, a failure in management which allowed sexual abuse to occur.

At the time of the public hearing of the royal commission, the approach taken by DVA in assessing claims for child abuse at these two locations was incorrect in requiring assessors to reject any claim that was not supported by independently corroborated evidence. Following the hearing, Defence confirmed that DVA had put into effect a new policy for determining claims for child abuse. So we can see that evidence that occurred in the royal commission about abuse that happened directly as a result of the Commonwealth's mismanagement has now led to a change in process, and that is critically important in moving forward.

The royal commission also found that the impact of abuse on these individuals has been lifelong and severe, and include physical injury, mental illness, suicide attempts, alcohol abuse and broken relationships. It found that, since at least 2000, policy guidelines and training manuals of the ADF cadets were incomplete and misleading in regard to the legal age of consent and the effect of special care provisions.

We have seen, really, that not only was it the states and territories' in their responsibilities, and also that of private institutions, but, indeed, that the Commonwealth itself did let those under its care down. They let those under its care down, and this royal commission and the redress scheme are critically important to setting those wrongs right. It is incumbent, I think, on all of us to continue to ensure that this is not a set-and-forget policy, that we continue to recognise the impact of what past behaviour has had on individuals—the continuing lifelong impact that has had. We must continue as a parliament and as a nation to recognise this and to ensure that we do everything in our power to say sorry and also, importantly, to bring in a national redress scheme that actually goes some way in this. We can never change the past and we can never make up for all the damage that has been done, but if we get this redress scheme right—if we make sure that it's truly national and that it's in line with the royal commission's recommendations—then we can go some way in saying that we got it wrong but we're trying to make amends. I commend the bill to the House.

Pat Conroy (Shortland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Infrastructure) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm proud to rise and make a contribution to the debate on the National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Bill 2018.

Over the last five years we have heard about the most heartbreaking of stories, from the bravest of people, at the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. I, like my colleagues in parliament, want to make it clear that we believe them. We know they were victims of horrible crimes, we know they were let down by people in institutions that were meant to keep them safe and we know that they deserve adequate redress for this. The persistence and strength that they have shown in this fight has been an inspiration, and we commit to dutifully providing a national redress scheme that recognises the injustices that they have suffered, the struggle they have gone through to get here and be heard, and the tough road that lies ahead for so many.

That's why Labor will work with survivors and the government to implement legislation that realises the recommendations of the royal commission and acknowledges the hardship of so many survivors. This must be a scheme that is inclusive, accessible and adequate. It would be offensive to the courage shown throughout this process and to the hard work which paved the way to a royal commission to accept anything less.

In 2013, the Gillard Labor government took responsibility and created the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, and I'm proud to be able to thank my predecessor, Greg Combet, the tireless activism of dedicated Hunter locals and of course Ms Gillard for this achievement. In June of that year, Prime Minister Gillard put aside what was a chaotic moment in Australian politics to focus on an issue that she knew was more important. After years of Australian governments ignoring mounting evidence, the Gillard government took action. Members in that government still cite this royal commission as one of their most important moments and one of their proudest legacies. None has been more stalwart in their pursuit of justice in parliament than the member for Jagajaga. I know how proud she is of what this movement has achieved and how deeply she cares for the thousands who have been let down in this country over the years. This parliament is united in its recognition that the creation of the royal commission was one of the most significant moments in our history. To those who worked so hard for so long—like Julia and Jenny, and like so many survivors—we are grateful.

However, these fighters and gutsy survivors have been quick to remind us of our responsibility, saying that the hard work of those who came before us was not for show, and that, while the chance to tell their story and be heard was a welcome relief, the job was not done yet. We have a duty to this nation and to those who bravely shared their experience with the royal commission to deliver real justice and appropriate redress. The Labor Party established this commission. We have supported it throughout the process. And we will not be giving up now. We have a chance here today to deliver on the promise of the royal commission, to turn appreciation and belief into action, and I look forward to working with the government to address a national redress scheme which achieves these outcomes.

I turn now to the Hunter, because the truth is: this process has impacted the Hunter region as much as anywhere else and more than most. As a community, we've been shocked by the extent of, and the lack of response to, child sexual abuse right on our doorstep.

One of the most shocking stories of abuse in our region was that of the crimes committed by James Patrick Fletcher, a priest who preyed on young boys in the Hunter for decades. We now know that this abuse was allowed to take place thanks to a culture of cover-ups and deceit that permeated the entire diocese of Maitland-Newcastle for many years.

In 1976, Peter Creigh reported the abuse he had suffered at the hands of Mr Fletcher to the then priest, and later Archbishop of Adelaide, Philip Wilson. Mr Wilson not only concealed this abuse from the authorities but also allowed Mr Fletcher to continue working as a priest with boys in that area. This not only saw Fletcher avoid professional criminal consequences for his actions but in fact allowed him to continue abusing young boys in the Hunter for years to come. The royal commission has shown us that that is an all-too-familiar pattern, and that the culture of protecting child abusers has permeated institutions in this country to the highest of levels.

Last Tuesday in Newcastle, Archbishop Wilson was found guilty of concealing these crimes in a courtroom populated by many who should have been spared the abuse that was allowed to continue. He is the world's highest-ranking Catholic official ever convicted of concealing child sexual abuse and did so in my home region of the Hunter. In the verdict handed down last week, the magistrate said of Mr Wilson: 'You have to ask why the accused did not do what he himself says he would do now'—that is, to go to the police—'in the same situation. The answer, I believe, relates to the accused having a sense of knowing what he was hearing was a credible allegation. In addition, the accused wanted to protect the church and its image.' As Daniel Feenan put it on the steps outside court: 'If this bloke had done something in 1976, which was the year that I was born, my life would have been a lot different to what it is today.'

My thanks go to former detective Peter Fox for his hard work in putting James Fletcher behind bars and for his continued work in this area which led to the New South Wales special commission of inquiry which was the predecessor of the royal commission. To him and the current Strike Force Lantle police for their investigation and prosecution of these crimes, I and many in the Hunter are grateful. I also want to acknowledge the tireless work of the Newcastle Herald, Joanne McCarthy and their Shine the Light team.

The frequency and severity of this abuse has been so damaging to so many in our region. I want to pay tribute to the commission for giving these survivors a platform to share their experience and shine a light into these dark corners. It is because of this that we're now able to begin a process of healing and to reach out to our neighbours, friends and family to support each other.

In late 2012 more than 400 Hunter residents attended a forum of what became known as 60 years of shame for the region in terms of child sexual abuse. Tracey Pirona was there to tell a story of her husband John who took his own life months earlier. John was one of 12 others who is no longer with us due to the actions of a single priest. Tracey's words painted a familiar picture.

That man alone—

the priest—

… changed the path of John's life from such a young age and teachers and principals knew what was happening to these children and they condoned it by not reporting it …

On the royal commission's website you can read thousands of stories of abuse, neglect and betrayal in institutions across this country. I would like to share one of these now from the Central Coast, another part of my electorate damaged by such abuse.

After suffering sexual abuse at the hands of her father, and subsequently being forced to live in unsafe conditions which saw her badly burned by a family friend, Corrine was made a ward of the state. She was sent to a children's group home on the Central Coast of New South Wales at the age of 11. Corrine and many others at the home were forced to perform sexual acts on other children and forced to assault other children due to a lack of supervision and a lack of security in that home. Corrine was placed into foster care at the age of 14 where she was again repeatedly sexually abused by one of her guardians. She left this home and nobody from community services supervised where she was or checked on her wellbeing at the age of 14. As a teenager, she had two children to her husband who also abused her, and she eventually fell into an addiction of painkillers. Corrine has struggled with suicide ideas and has continued to live with anxiety. For Corrine a chance to speak openly about her experiences helps her heal after such a long period of trauma. This story paints a picture of constant failure of institutions to provide the care and protection that she was entitled to. This betrayal has stayed with Corrine, who said to the commission:

No-one has ever, ever said sorry for what happened to me in care when I was a child. I was supposed to be looked after.

The royal commission has methodically exposed institutional abuse in our nation, in churches and in schools by coaches and by carers to boys and to girls.

These stories from the Hunter, from the Central Coast and from communities around Australia turn feelings of hopelessness and fear into solidarity and anger. A public that looked the other way for too long has taken notice and is demanding action. That is what we are here to do now. We're in this parliament to take action and respond to these irrefutable findings. This legislation must not fail survivors. Having finally heard their stories, this is now our first chance to start the process of change, to demonstrate that institutions in this country will do what it takes to make sure we do not let them down again.

Labor looks forward to the findings of the Senate inquiry into this legislation, but there are some initial concerns worth highlighting. We want to make sure that any legislation guarantees support services are accessible, regardless of where a survivor lives or what language they speak. We want this bill, as it stands, to bring some measures into line with the recommendations of the commission. As it stands, survivors would have six months to decide whether to accept an offer to of redress, despite the royal commission recommending a year. The bill offers a limit of $150,000 for survivors compared to the $200,000 called for. Legislation must not be limited, as it currently would be, to Australian citizens or those living in Australia. This ignores the large number of child migrants and the abuse of children in immigration detention. I want to also say the legislation must be fair to those with criminal records.

We know from evidence to the royal commission, from experts in the field and from undeniable statistics that suffering abuse such as these people have often leads to addiction, to mental health issues and to crime. On this basis, to exclude people let down by a system meant to protect them is totally unacceptable. We must be brave. We must go beyond a fear of a few tabloid headlines about providing compensation to people who have been in prison to recognise that this abuse has led to addiction and has led to massive mental health issues, and the inevitable result of that is criminal convictions. We must provide redress and we must provide justice to all survivors of institutional child sexual abuse, even if they have gone to prison. I urge the Senate inquiry to give this issue particular consideration so that all survivors have access to compensation. That is why we're having the Senate inquiry.

Getting this legislation right is so vital in supporting survivors now and into the future, and I trust that my Senate colleagues appreciate the gravity of this task. This is not a partisan issue. This is as clear as it gets in politics. This goes to the heart of why we're here, why each of us wants to be in this House, and that is the chance to make a genuine, positive impact on the lives of Australians. I am confident that we will come together across the aisle and deliver justice on the back of the hard work of so many.

In conclusion, the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse has brought into the public eye something that has been an ongoing feature of every community across this country for far too long. If you have not done so already, I urge you to read some of the 4,000 stories from survivors, available on the royal commission's website, because this is not just an issue for me or for parliament; this is an issue we all have to face together as a nation. We need to be united. State governments, churches, schools and all institutions must together make a statement that survivors have been wronged and deserve better. I want to place on the record my sincere and humble thanks for all those who have made this happen and to commit myself to working with the Hunter region and the Central Coast region to support survivors and to change this devastating culture.

I finally want to acknowledge all those who have lost their lives and livelihoods because of this institutional abuse, and to pay respect to those who have fought to this day but who were not around to receive the justice they so deserved. I am so tremendously sorry.

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Bill 2018 and the National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2018.

Child sexual abuse is abhorrent. I cannot state that in strong enough terms. It is vile. For way too many years it was hidden and too often suspected but unspoken of and not reported. And that is our great shame. Too often, too many of us turned our backs on the horror of child sexual abuse. We were afraid to confront the dreadful truth, to even acknowledge the victims' stories, let alone believe them, and then to seek justice on their behalf. But, as the scorching light of the royal commission has been shone on this hidden horror, we have listened, we have been shocked and we have believed. I say again: we believe you.

We now accept without question that the horror of child abuse has occurred and that, too often, it was right under our noses. As I speak on this bill, I acknowledge that there has been a societal change in the wake of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, and the change is this: where once we turned our backs, now we look and listen. Where once we heard through a filter of doubt and scepticism, now we hear the full horror of shattered lives. Where once we may have said, 'It's none of my business,' now we know that protecting children is everyone's business. This is a fundamental change that will have a lasting impact on the protection of children in Australia. This change has occurred not because of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse—although the work the royal commission has done has been invaluable—and certainly not because of the institutions who have been shamed during the royal commission. It is squarely because of the bravery of the victims of child sexual abuse who came forward to tell their stories. They came forward even though some of them had told their stories before and not been believed. And some had never before told their stories, not to a single soul. I don't think any of us can understand what courage that takes. I know I can't. The lasting legacy of their courage will be that, when the next child speaks out—and the child after that—they will be believed. We will never again turn our backs as a nation.

The work of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse has been extraordinary. I am very proud to have been a member of the parliament in November 2012 when Prime Minister Gillard announced that she would recommend to the Governor-General that a royal commission be appointed to inquire into institutional responses to child abuse. Her Excellency Quentin Bryce, the then Governor-General, announced in January 2013 that six commissioners, led by Justice Peter McClellan, would undertake the task of conducting the inquiry. I particularly mention Bob Atkinson, the former police commissioner from Queensland, for the great work he did as one of the royal commissioners. The royal commission handed down its final report in December 2017. The commissioners made a total of 409 recommendations. The workload of this royal commission was phenomenal. I thank all of the royal commissioners, and particularly their staff, for their considered work over five years. The horrors they must have waded through will no doubt leave a lasting imprint on all of their lives as well. Carrying that distilled horror and heartache is a great burden for any human, so I thank them again.

The royal commission received 42,041 calls, and 25,964 letters and emails; held 8,013 private sessions; and made 2,575 referrals to authorities, including the police. The royal commission's terms of reference were:

… to inquire into institutional responses to allegations and incidents of child sexual abuse and … what institutions and governments should do to better protect children against child sexual abuse …

The evidence the commission received was shocking, perhaps more so because we have all been part of those institutions that ignored or, even worse, covered up the abuse. The institutions that were referred to the commission including schools, childcare centres, sporting and recreation clubs, religious institutions, youth detention facilities and the armed forces. In one way or another we have all been involved in at least one of these institutions. We were there while these horrific crimes were taking place. We didn't see—or chose not to—the lives being shattered in our midst, the quiet crumbling of spirits right alongside us.

For the victims the impact of child sexual abuse can be devastating, life-changing, life-limiting and, sadly, as we have heard too often, life-ending. It is especially important to look beyond the shattered husks of lives gutted before they had even begun. When a child is abused at school, they won't want to go to school. That's not too hard to understand. Their education has been stolen from them along with their childhood. Without an education, and suffering from extreme trauma, their capacity to work is reduced, and it is not surprising that victims of child sexual abuse can then as adolescents become vulnerable to the call of criminal activity. We have to acknowledge with much sympathy the path that the survivors have been led or pushed down. Where survivors have been led into crime and convicted, they have taken responsibility and paid their debt to society, just like everyone else who is convicted of a crime. The government has sought in this bill to place restrictions on the redress that can be accessed by survivors who have a criminal history. I believe this is wrong and deeply unfair. The redress scheme is an important step in the healing process for survivors.

There are three elements of the redress scheme: it will provide a monetary payment, access to counselling and psychological services, and the opportunity to receive an apology from a representative of the institution responsible for the abuse. Applicants who accept an offer for redress will be required to waive their civil law rights against the responsible institution by signing a deed of release, support services and legal services will be provided to applicants throughout the redress scheme process, and financial advice will be provided to applicants who accept an offer of redress. I have some concerns about the proposed scheme contained in the bills. There must be sufficient support services available for the survivors to access, wherever they are living and no matter what language they speak. The bill gives applicants six months to decide whether or not to accept an offer of redress. The royal commission recommended they be given a year to make this decision. For survivors this will be an emotional and overwhelming process. Applicants are allowed only one application to the scheme. There is no policy rationale for limiting the time for applicants to make this important decision. I am concerned that rushing survivors into making this once-only decision may not be in their best interests.

Kevin Hogan (Page, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour.