Linda Burney (Barton, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Families and Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move opposition amendment (1) circulated in my name:

(1) Schedule 1, page 15 (after line 13), after Part 6, insert:

Part 6A — Naming and shaming non - participating institutions

National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Act 2018

48A At the end of Division 3 of Part 5 - 1

Add:

116A Naming and shaming non - participating institutions

(1) This section applies to a non-government institution if:

(a) either:

(i) an application made under section 19 identifies the institution as being involved in the abuse of a person; or

(ii) information given in response to a request under section 24 or 25, in relation to an application made under section 19, identifies the institution as being involved in the abuse of a person; and

(b) the application has not been withdrawn under section 22; and

(c) the institution is not a participating non-government institution.

(2) If the institution refuses to participate in the scheme, the Minister must publish a notice stating that, despite the matters mentioned in paragraphs (1)(a) and (b), the institution refuses to participate in the scheme.

Institution has 6 months to becoming participating after first application etc. that identifies institution

(3) The Minister must not publish a notice under subsection (2) in relation to the institution until the end of 6 months after the first time subparagraph (1)(a)(i) or (ii) applies in relation to the institution.

This amendment will introduce a requirement that the minister name any institution that refuses to join the Redress Scheme within six months of an application for redress being received. I acknowledge that this is the government's policy and that the government made a change late last year to allow for the removal of an institution's charitable status after six months if it does not join the scheme. It is a change that was made after significant pressure from survivors and from Labor. But this is not guaranteed; it requires proactive management by the government. I have no doubt that the minister will do the right thing here. However, the naming of redress dodgers should be something that is automatic and guaranteed. This amendment should be supported by the government. It is in line with their position. It is simply unacceptable that institutions do not attempt to join the scheme. They have a moral duty: participating in redress is part of an institution's social licence, and any organisation that does not participate should face the full glare of the Australian community.

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that amendment (1) be disagreed to.

Linda Burney (Barton, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Families and Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move opposition amendments (2), (3), (7) and (9), as circulated in my name, together:

(2) Schedule 1, item 51, page 18 (after line 30), at the end of Part 8-2, add:

200 Increase in cap on redress payments

(1) As soon as practicable after this section commences, the Minister must consider the action that needs to be taken to increase the $150,000 cap on redress payments to $200,000.

(2) Within 90 days after this section commences, the Minister must prepare a report on:

(a) what the Minister has done, or plans to do, to have the cap increased as mentioned in subsection (1); or

(b) if the Minister has not done, and does not plan to do, anything—the Minister's reasons for this.

(3) The Minister must cause a copy of the report to be tabled in each House of the Parliament on or before the first sitting day of that House after the end of those 90 days.

(4) In this section:

action includes amending this Act, an instrument made under this Act, or any other law.

(3) Schedule 1, item 51, page 18 (after line 30), at the end of Part 8-2, add:

201 Ending indexing of relevant prior payments

(1) As soon as practicable after this section commences, the Minister must consider the action that needs to be taken to end the indexing of relevant prior payments.

(2) Within 90 days after this section commences, the Minister must prepare a report on:

(a) what the Minister has done, or plans to do, to have indexing ended as mentioned in subsection (1); or

(b) if the Minister has not done, and does not plan to do, anything—the Minister's reasons for this.

(3) The Minister must cause a copy of the report to be tabled in each House of the Parliament on or before the first sitting day of that House after the end of those 90 days.

(4) In this section:

action includes amending this Act, an instrument made under this Act, or any other law.

(7) Schedule 1, item 51, page 18 (after line 30), at the end of Part 8-2, add:

205 Psychological counselling and support

(1) As soon as practicable after this section commences, the Minister must consider the action that needs to be taken to ensure that necessary ongoing psychological counselling and support is given to persons who are entitled to redress under the scheme.

(2) Within 90 days after this section commences, the Minister must prepare a report on:

(a) what the Minister has done, or plans to do, to have psychological counselling and support given as mentioned in subsection (1); or

(b) if the Minister has not done, and does not plan to do, anything—the Minister's reasons for this.

(3) The Minister must cause a copy of the report to be tabled in each House of the Parliament on or before the first sitting day of that House after the end of those 90 days.

(4) In this section:

action includes amending this Act, an instrument made under this Act, or any other law.

(9) Schedule 1, item 51, page 18 (after line 30), at the end of Part 8-2, add:

207 Review of determinations cannot reduce payments

(1) As soon as practicable after this section commences, the Minister must consider the action that needs to be taken to ensure that a review of a determination under Part 4-1 cannot reduce the total amount of redress under the determination.

(2) Within 90 days after this section commences, the Minister must prepare a report on:

(a) what the Minister has done, or plans to do, to ensure that a review of a determination under Part 4-1 cannot reduce the total amount of redress under the determination; or

(b) if the Minister has not done, and does not plan to do, anything—the Minister's reasons for this.

(3) The Minister must cause a copy of the report to be tabled in each House of the Parliament on or before the first sitting day of that House after the end of those 90 days.

(4) In this section:

action includes amending this Act, an instrument made under this Act, or any other law.

All of the amendments that Labor will be moving today have been deliberately structured to give the government flexibility and latitude, and that's a very important point, despite the fact that you all just voted against your own policy. They give flexibility to negotiate with the states and territories to make the changes that are needed to the scheme, and the latitude to implement the change in the most effective way. It also means that the government can respond in a way that takes the findings of the two independent yearly reviews into account.

What we're really calling for here is leadership, national leadership, across the states and territories and a clear commitment from the government to bring the scheme back to what the royal commission recommended. There is absolutely no reason for the government not to support these amendments. They require the minister to report to the parliament within 90 days. That's the latitude and flexibility with which, and the spirit in which, we move these amendments. All of us here owe it to survivors to get this right and not simply say that it is all too hard.

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the amendments be disagreed to.

Linda Burney (Barton, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Families and Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move opposition amendment (4):

(4) Schedule 1, item 51, page 18 (after line 30), at the end of Part 8-2, add:

202 Deducting prior payments—safeguards

(1) As soon as practicable after this section commences, the Minister must consider the action that needs to be taken to ensure that prior payments are deducted from redress payments only if, and only to the extent that, it is proven that the prior payments are relevant prior payments.

(2) Within 90 days after this section commences, the Minister must prepare a report on:

(a) what the Minister has done, or plans to do, to ensure the result mentioned in subsection (1); or

(b) if the Minister has not done, and does not plan to do, anything—the Minister's reasons for this.

(3) The Minister must cause a copy of the report to be tabled in each House of the Parliament on or before the first sitting day of that House after the end of those 90 days.

(4) In this section:

action includes amending this Act, an instrument made under this Act, or any other law.

This amendment will make sure that payments made in the past for other purposes are not taken from redress payments—for example, to the Stolen Generations. This would mean the scheme would give survivors the benefit of the doubt, and this is only fair.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for the Arts) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am speaking in support of the amendment. Yesterday, the Prime Minister tabled a document concerning who was representing the ministers in the other place. We have significant amendments about something that has a level of bipartisan support. If the government is going to oppose all of these amendments, whoever was yesterday said to be the minister representing the minister in the other place should at least give a reason why you're opposing these amendments. What we're talking about here are people who have been dying before they get the payments. We're seeking to have a mechanism so they get some money before they're dead, after they have gone through this. We don't know if you are going to vote against it because we haven't had the vote on it yet. But, whoever on that side represents the government on this issue, if you are, give us a reason why you're opposing the amendment, or, if you're supporting it, give us a reason why you agree with it.

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that amendment (4) be disagreed to.

Linda Burney (Barton, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Families and Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move opposition amendment (5):

(5) Schedule 1, item 51, page 18 (after line 30), at the end of Part 8-2, add:

203 Advance payment scheme for elderly and ill applicants

(1) As soon as practicable after this section commences, the Minister must consider the action that needs to be taken so that, in appropriate circumstances, redress is payable to elderly or ill applicants in advance of their applications being approved.

(2) Within 90 days after this section commences, the Minister must prepare a report on:

(a) what the Minister has done, or plans to do, to have redress payable as mentioned in subsection (1); or

(b) if the Minister has not done, and does not plan to do, anything—the Minister's reasons for this.

(3) The Minister must cause a copy of the report to be tabled in each House of the Parliament on or before the first sitting day of that House after the end of those 90 days.

(4) In this section:

action includes amending this Act, an instrument made under this Act, or any other law.

To me, this is one of the most important amendments. Many people who are survivors of child sexual assault are old and unwell, and many have died waiting for their payment. An early payment scheme is working well in Scotland. It would not cost more. There are no cost implications. It would just give people recognition and peace of mind at the end of their lives.

David Gillespie (Lyne, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that amendment (5) be disagreed to.

Honourable members interjecting—

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Members on both sides, standing order 94(a) applies even when the division bells are ringing. The question is that amendment (5) be disagreed to.

Linda Burney (Barton, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Families and Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move opposition amendments (6) and (10) as circulated in my name:

(6) Schedule 1, item 51, page 18 (after line 30), at the end of Part 8-2, add:

204 Funders of last resort guarantee

(1) As soon as practicable after this section commences, the Minister must consider the action that needs to be taken to ensure that, for each non-government institution that:

(a) is responsible for the abuse of a person; and

(b) is not a participating institution; and

(c) either:

  (i) is a defunct institution; or

  (ii) because of the institution's financial situation, cannot participate in the scheme;

there is a government institution that is liable for what the non-government institution would have been liable to pay in relation to a person had the non-government institution been a participating institution.

(2) Within 90 days after this section commences, the Minister must prepare a report on:

(a) what the Minister has done, or plans to do, to ensure the result mentioned in subsection (1); or

(b) if the Minister has not done, and does not plan to do, anything—the Minister's reasons for this.

(3) The Minister must cause a copy of the report to be tabled in each House of the Parliament on or before the first sitting day of that House after the end of those 90 days.

(4) In this section:

action includes amending this Act, an instrument made under this Act, or any other law.

(10) Schedule 1, item 51, page 18 (after line 30), at the end of Part 8-2, add:

208 Requiring non -participating institutions to contribute to scheme

(1) As soon as practicable after this section commences, the Minister must consider the action that needs to be taken to ensure that:

(a) redress is payable under the scheme even if the institutions responsible for the abuse are non-participating institutions; and

(b) non-participating institutions that refuse to participate in the scheme despite being capable of doing so are required to contribute to the scheme, in relation to abuse for which they are responsible, to the same extent as participating institutions; and

(c) in particular, attempts by non-participating institutions to evade their obligations in relation to abuse, such as by restructuring to shield assets, are not successful.

(2) Within 90 days after this section commences, the Minister must prepare a report on:

(a) what the Minister has done, or plans to do, to ensure the result mentioned in subsection (1); or

(b) if the Minister has not done, and does not plan to do, anything—the Minister's reasons for this.

(3) The Minister must cause a copy of the report to be tabled in each House of the Parliament on or before the first sitting day of that House after the end of those 90 days.

(4) In this section:

action includes amending this Act, an instrument made under this Act, or any other law.

Amendment (6) will make sure that no-one misses out on redress. If an old organisation that has folded no longer has any links to a continuing organisation, or if an organisation generally does not have the resources to participate in the scheme, government should make sure that the redress is paid as funder of last resort. Amendment (10) requires non-participating organisations to participate. This amendment will make sure that, if an organisation refuses to participate in the scheme or deliberately restructures their assets so as to appear they can't participate, the government will be able to get funds from the organisation by order to pay redress. This could take the form of a levy or collection through the tax system. It is unacceptable for organisations to refuse to participate or hide assets, and they must pay redress to those they have hurt.

Rob Mitchell (McEwen, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is one of the most serious issues we can face in this parliament—supporting the victims of child sexual abuse. The government should come here and actually answer the question of why they're refusing—not sitting during divisions and saying, 'We've made a decision, bad luck, get on with it and stop wasting the parliament's time.' It's one of most important things we can do. So my challenge to the government is: stand up and defend your decisions. Why are you going against the royal commission? And why are you going against these very reasonable amendments?

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that amendments (6) and (10) be disagreed to.

Linda Burney (Barton, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Families and Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move the final amendment in my name, opposition amendment (8):

(8) Schedule 1, item 51, page 18 (after line 30), at the end of Part 8-2, add:

206 Better recognising the impact of sexual abuse

(1) As soon as practicable after this section commences, the Minister must consider the action that needs to be taken to have the assessment framework better recognise the impact of sexual abuse.

(2) Within 90 days after this section commences, the Minister must prepare a report on:

(a) what the Minister has done, or plans to do, to have the assessment framework better recognise the impact of sexual abuse; or

(b) if the Minister has not done, and does not plan to do, anything—the Minister’s reasons for this.

(3) The Minister must cause a copy of the report to be tabled in each House of the Parliament on or before the first sitting day of that House after the end of those 90 days.

(4) In this section:

action includes amending this Act, an instrument made under this Act, or any other law.

This amendment is about recognising the impact of abuse. This would require the impact of abuse to be better recognised. Survivors have told me about the cruel and arbitrary matrix which links payments for the impacts of abuse to the nature of the abuse. This needs to change so that payments for abuse are calculated independently, as recommended by the royal commission.

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the amendment be disagreed to.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for the Arts) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move:

That the member for Fadden be heard now.

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, I think that's in order. The question is that the member for Fadden be heard now, so I need to put that question. All those of that opinion—

A government member interjecting—

I've got to put the question, yes. Sorry, I've just erred there. I'm going to reverse it so we don't need to swap sides; I'm anticipating there'll be a division. The question was that the member for Fadden be heard; it should be 'not heard'. Yes, that's right. Let's do it that way. The question is that the motion be disagreed to.

Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the amendment be disagreed to.