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 Amendment Bill 2023. The evidence tells us that survivors of child sexual abuse are more likely to be incarcerated later in life. My wife, when she was a solicitor working for knowmore, the community legal service centre to help victims of abuse, spoke to many of her clients and took their statements in prisons right around Australia. That's the sad reality. The amendments to this bill are fair measures which give this particular group of survivors the opportunity to rebuild their lives.

I note that the member for Deakin's contribution focused on eternal retribution for the survivors of childhood sexual abuse who'd been subsequently incarcerated. Many Christians can't hear that redemption song. I find that very disappointing. Perhaps they should spend a bit more time reading the New Testament rather than wallowing always in the Old Testament. Some sequels are actually better! Compassion and a belief in redemption and humanity does not mean you're lenient on crime. I stress that to the member for Deakin.

When I spoke in parliament back in 2018 on the National Redress Scheme, I said that whatever had happened in the past must be remedied in the future and that the future must include such a national redress scheme. But fast forward to today, 7 February 2024, and I'm pleased to say that, as a sign of the Albanese government's commitment to continual improvement of the scheme, the bill also includes an amendment to the act that will improve the process for applicants with serious criminal convictions so that the special assessment process is only required for a person convicted of an unlawful killing, terrorism offences or sexual offences, with exceptional circumstances where appropriate. It will also allow incarcerated survivors to apply for redress— (Time expired)

Jenny Ware (Hughes, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Amendment Bill 2023. This legislation proposes to amend certain aspects of the National Redress Scheme which was established under the former coalition government. As a preliminary matter, I thought it might be helpful to recall how the National Redress Scheme was legislated. It came about as a key recommendation from the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. The royal commission was chaired by the Hon. Justice Peter McClellan and was Australia's longest royal commission to date, having run for more than four years. During that period, the royal commission heard from thousands of survivors across Australia. Their stories opened Australians' eyes to the prevalence of child sexual abuse, the failures of institutions to respond and the lifelong impact it brings to bear for victims as well as their families.

As I was not in this place at that time, I take this opportunity to acknowledge the survivors of institutionalised sexual abuse, their families and the organisations that have represented and supported them over many years—often decades. In a former life, I did a little bit of work for some of these victims when I was at a firm, David Begg & Associates, and I just want to acknowledge the work that David and one of my colleagues there, John Ellis, did.

But, mostly, I commend the courage of the victims who came forward with their harrowing claims of grotesque abuse. I was present in this chamber when the honourable member for Moreton said in his speech, 'There are no words, there are no adjectives, to describe the testimony that was given.' I said 'grotesque'. I used the thesaurus, and there are other words: 'reprehensible', 'repugnant', 'sickening', 'loathsome'. This was abuse of our most vulnerable, our children, by those in institutions, ranging from religious to educational, whose role was to protect, nurture and support those victims. Instead, on too many occasions, over too many years—decades in many instances—the abuse was hushed up to protect the reputation of the abusers and the institutions. Victims were not believed.

I also commend the work carried out by all of those involved in the royal commission. At the time of handing down his report, Peter McClellan described the conjunction of events examined by the royal commission as a national tragedy. He concluded that, while the primary responsibility for the sexual abuse of a child lies with the abuser and the institution of which they were part, the problems faced by many of the victims are the responsibility of our entire society. One of the key recommendations which arose from that was the establishment of the National Redress Scheme. The chief commissioner described it as a national tragedy. That's why it was entirely appropriate that legislation was brought into this place on a bipartisan basis to address that national tragedy.

The Redress Scheme recognises the suffering that survivors have experienced and accepts that these events occurred and that institutions must take responsibility for this abuse. The scheme remains the most significant step in addressing the wrongs of the past, providing some justice to survivors and trying to ensure, as we go forward as a nation, that this abuse never happens again. This also represents a very important step in healing. It ensures that governments and institutions will take those safeguards into the future. It is intended to provide a survivor with the means to access a sense of justice through monetary redress, restorative supports and, where the victim wants it, a personal apology or statement from the institution. Its purpose is to be faster, simpler and less distressing for survivors and to provide governments and institutions with the means to deliver justice to their survivors.

It was very pleasing to see that the scheme operates on a cooperative basis between Commonwealth, state and territory governments, underpinned by referral legislation in each state and territory. Its main components are a monetary payment of up to $150,000, counselling and psychological care, as well as a direct apology, if sought by the victim. As at June of last year, the average redress payment was $88,524.

There are a number of criteria that applicants need to meet for redress. Those criteria are: there was a reasonable likelihood the applicant was a victim of sexual abuse; one or more participating institutions are responsible for the abuse; the applicant was a child and an Australian citizen or resident at the time of the abuse; and the abuse occurred prior to the scheme start date.

The stated purpose of the bill currently before this place is to respond to recommendations from the second-year review of the National Redress Scheme. Its stated intention is to improve accessibility to redress, enhance choice for survivors, increase transparency and hold the scheme accountable.

To recap, this scheme was implemented as an acknowledgement by Australian state and territory governments that sexual abuse suffered by children in institution settings was wrong and that it did occur. It was a betrayal of trust and should never have happened. It is appropriate, therefore, that governments continue to review the scheme to ensure it remains an appropriate, fair and tangible form of redress for victims. To that extent, I commend the bill to the House.

Louise Miller-Frost (Boothby, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak to the National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Amendment Bill 2023. This bill introduces legislative amendments to the National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Act 2018. These amendments form part of the government's final response to recommendations from the Final Report, Second Year Review of the National Redress Scheme, undertaken by Ms Robyn Kruk AO.

The National Redress Scheme is designed to assist people who've experienced institutional child sexual abuse. It is one of the many significant outcomes of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, finalised in 2017. Over five years, the royal commission heard from more than 16,000 brave people who shared their harrowing experience of sexual abuse that happened when they were in institutions. The submissions of all those people that bravely relived their trauma so that the truth could come to light have allowed for us to be here. Many had never told anyone previously, such was the shame and distress—shame they should never have felt, shame that should have belonged to the perpetrator, not to the survivor-victim.

The average length of time to disclose for women was 20.6 years and for males was 25.6 years. We know many victims never disclose. The longest time to disclose was an elderly man in his 80s, who attended with his adult son. He had been abused as an 11-year-old and had never told anyone; no-one in his family knew. He made his son sit outside.

We know child sexual abuse happens. We know it has happened. We know in all likelihood it is still happening, often in homes but also in trusted institutions, and this bill relates to that latter part. From my work in the homeless sector, I know that the impact of child sexual abuse is multifaceted and long-lasting. Many people experiencing homelessness have a background of being abused as children, and it can be an experience that destabilises them for their entire life. These toxic secrets and the manipulation by perpetrators undermine fundamental family relationships, leading to trust issues and, in some cases, deep rooted personality issues. It can affect a victim-survivor's ability to form relationships, friendships, even collegiate relationships at work. Such trauma and manipulation during early brain development can cause a lifelong developmental deficit and affect mental health. It can affect their attendance at school and their education pathway, which, of course, impact their participation in workforce and career pathways. It can be life limiting and, sadly, as we know, it can be life ending.

Victims-survivors deserve recompense, but there are a number of barriers to that outcome occurring. Delayed disclosure is often used against victims-survivors, undermining their credibility, aimed at destroying their confidence and courage. It is an intimidation tactic. The trauma brain can result in confused memories with some factors appearing larger and more prominent in the memory and others being suppressed or sublimated. They can't remember the colour of the carpet or the curtains, which is used against them, but they can remember and, sadly, they can relive how they felt—panicked, powerless, distressed, vulnerable.

Abuse over a period of time, possibly by multiple perpetrators, makes it difficult for a victim-survivor to name dates and specific instances of what happened when and by whom. Courts demand linear, consistent facts, dates, times, details that can be examined and disputed, but that's not how trauma memory works. And, ultimately, they were a child at the time of this occurring. Their brain may still have been developing. And many have spent years, decades, trying to forget, trying to move on. Reliving it and speaking about it in an adversarial legal process can be traumatising. All in all, they are often not good witnesses in an adversarial court process—easily undermined, intimidated. The powerlessness they felt during the abuse is replicated in the court process in the presence of the perpetrators.

So the National Redress Scheme was set up in 2018, after the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, to address just this issue. Its aim is to have a redress scheme that is based on survivor knowledge, focused on minimising further harm and retraumatisation by avoiding that adversarial experience, and provides assistance to people who have survived truly harrowing experiences. Survivors who have experienced child sexual abuse at participating declared organisations, including sporting and educational institutions, can receive a payment of up to $150,000, but also, importantly, access to counselling and psychological care and a direct personal response for historical child sexual abuse where an institution is found responsible or negligent in its care.

The institutions participating in the scheme comprise religious orders and affiliated bodies, schools and education providers, sporting bodies, community clubs and rehabilitation support services, among others. As of November, 496 non-government institutions were taking part in the scheme, covering more than 69,000 sites across the country. It's a really important statement for each of these institutions to take responsibility for past sexual abuse against children. Either you're on the side of the victim-survivor or you're on the side of the perpetrator; there's no middle ground.

More than $1 billion in redress payments have been paid to survivors since the scheme's establishment, in more than 11,000 outcomes. For those who have experienced institutional abuse, the scheme provides acknowledgement and recognition of the suffering they experience and a direct personal response. This provides survivors with a meaningful response and recognition of their suffering and it holds responsible institutions to account. This can be hugely powerful for survivors, as it recognises not just what happened to them in the past but the lifelong impact of institutional child sexual abuse. This, alongside the redress payment and access to counselling services, ensures that the scheme is focused first and foremost on the wellbeing of survivors.

Consistent with this government's policy of ongoing improvement of the scheme, this bill will ultimately support greater access to redress, increase the choices available to survivors, and ensure fairer and more consistent outcomes that acknowledge the enduring impact of child sexual abuse. The review made a total of 38 recommendations, identifying a number of administrative, policy and operational matters that need improvement to ensure the scheme meets its statutory objectives, facilitates greater accessibility and support to survivors, and provides a more trauma informed experience that is responsive to survivors of institutional child sexual abuse.

The amendments made by the bill will establish a process to give applicants the option of having their application reassessed if it was finalised with one or more relevant institutions not participating, where that institution subsequently joins the scheme or the government agrees as a funder of last resort. It will allow redress applicants to provided additional information with their request for an internal review and introduce a limited no-worse-off provision so that offers are not reduced on review by a differing interpretation of the application. It will improve the process for applicants with serious criminal convictions so that a special assessment process is only required for a person convicted of unlawful killing, terrorism, sexual offences or where a risk to the integrity of the scheme exists. It will allow incarcerated survivors to apply for redress, because we know that victims-survivors of child sexual abuse are overrepresented in the criminal justice system. It will expand the protected information provisions to enable additional circumstances in which protected information may be disclosed, and it will implement technical amendments to the funder of last resort provisions to correct technical drafting issues to ensure the legislation operates as intended.

This bill will also make minor technical amendments to support the effective operation of the scheme and increase access to the scheme for survivors.

Of the review's 38 recommendations, 29 were supported. A further five were supported in part, and five were not supported. Survivor input into changes in the scheme policy and processes is critically important, and consultation with survivors was front and centre in the review process. There were more than 450 submissions, surveys or consultations that informed the outcomes of the review. These were all contributed by survivors and ensured that their voices were heard in the drafting of these amendments.

Since coming to office, the government has prioritised working closely with states and territories on recommendations, many of which would constitute major changes to the scheme and which would require additional funding from government and non-government institutions. In accordance with the Intergovernmental Agreement on the National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse, all state and territory governments were also consulted on the bill, and we've been able to secure agreement to all of the proposed amendments from all state and territory governments.

It's worth noting that, by contrast, the former government received the final report of the second-year review in March 2021 and took no active steps to engage with jurisdictions on the recommendations, whereas our government moved urgently to finalise the response, by holding a redress ministers meeting in October 2022 and subsequently releasing the government response in May 2023, because we understand how important this is to get right and how urgent it is.

This is about supporting people who have endured harrowing experiences as children and ensuring that they get the help and recognition they need. We've all heard the stories of children being abused by people meant to be protecting them, and they are heartbreaking. The anger and sadness we feel when confronted with these stories is why we as a government are so committed to this scheme. Survivors have endured unimaginable pain, so we need to ensure that the systems we put in place to help them are as fair and streamlined as possible. For many, if they have disclosed, they've been disbelieved for decades. We believe them. We need to believe them.

The Department of Social Services will communicate the measures in this bill to survivors, institutions and other key stakeholders so that everyone involved can be ready to utilise the updated scheme. This bill evidences the commitment by all governments to improve access to redress and the survivor experience with the scheme, and it will uphold the legacy of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse.

The measures in the bill build on legislative and non-legislative steps taken to date in response to the review and implement our commitment to survivors to make meaningful improvements in the delivery of the scheme. Redress is about recognising the harm done to people who experienced sexual abuse as children and holding the institutions responsible to account. We take our responsibility to survivors seriously and we will keep pushing to improve access to redress. That's why I'm proud to be part of a government that is pushing forward on this bill and working to support the survivors of institutional child sexual abuse. We hear you. We understand. We believe you.

Jason Wood (La Trobe, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Community Safety, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What a very sad, sad situation it was for all those young children who were put in institutions, for whatever reason. In some cases, it would have been with the parents' consent. At other times, it would have been removal because the parents couldn't care for them. Those young people would have gone to an institution believing and hoping that they would be protected and cared for, but, sadly, they went into the clutches of evil. It wasn't tens or hundreds; it was thousands of children that this happened to. The sad reality for so many was that, when they tried to report it, they were not believed. Also, when the institutions became aware of it, rather than take action, they went into a mode of covering up and hiding. It went on for years and years.

In my own electorate, I've had people come forward and tell me their horrific experiences, and it's something they just can't get over. As a former police officer, I dealt with, obviously sadly, children who had been abused. Giving evidence in court was a harrowing experience for them. They can't remember days and times and everything else like that, and that's why a royal commission was set up. As we've heard from other members, we believe the victims, now adults. We think of you. We acknowledge the awful atrocities you went through, and it should never ever have occurred.

Something I'm very passionate about is having legislation in place to protect young people. Sadly, it doesn't matter what penalties we have in place, what measures we have in place, evil will lurk and evil people will do everything they can to take advantage of children. The sad reality is, as I said before, the children weren't believed, even as adults.

The National Redress Scheme was established in 2018 by the former coalition government as a response to recommendations from the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse—a very important royal commission. The Redress Scheme provides support to eligible applicants who have experienced institutional child sexual abuse with monetary compensation; counselling services, as many have obviously lived with the torment every day and can't move on; an option of a personal response from responsible institutions that they are believed; for governments and institutions to take steps to safeguard against these crimes to ensure they're not repeated in the future. Sadly, as I said before, there will always be someone there—it's the modus operandi of a child sex predator, putting themselves in a place where they have access to children.

The scheme is intended to be fast, simple and less distressing for survivors to provide governments and institutions with the means to deliver justice to the survivors. The scheme recognises suffering survivors have experienced, accepts that these events occurred and that institutions must take responsibility for the abuse. Sometimes it took a lot of effort to get those institutions to admit the wrongs of the past—horrible wrongs.

The scheme's most significant step is in addressing the wrongs of the past and providing a just response for survivors. The maximum redress payment a person can receive is $150,000. When they, sadly, have been abused and had their innocence taken away—well, it's an insignificant amount, but at least they receive some acknowledgement in a financial capacity. As of June 2023, the average redress payment was $88,254. There have been 13,741 applicants for redress who have received money from the scheme. That's more than 13,000 victims. Again, going from my experience, going back to my police force days, there will be many, many, many more victims than that who still, even if they were going to receive compensation, wouldn't come forward. The scheme issued 8,729 outcomes to applicants. More than 7,826 applications have been finalised and 7,530 payments have been made, totalling $650 million. But again, that's to thousands of victims. The average payment is nearly $86,000, 33 per cent higher than the royal commission's estimate of $65,000. But those figures, as I say, mean nothing to a victim.

There are 5,472 applications currently on hand being processed, and I urge the government to do everything they can to expediate those. But in saying that, it must go through a process. I understand that. That's a lot of applications to go through. Six hundred and seventy-three offers have been made and are waiting an applicant's decision; 625 applicants are with institutions to provide information.

When the scheme was established under the coalition government, there were some limitations for people who had committed the most serious crimes. If a person was convicted of an offence which received a custodial sentence of five years or more—and, can I say, to get five years or more in jail you would have had to do some very serious criminal activity—the operator may determine that the person is entitled to redress if providing redress to the person would not bring the scheme into disrepute and adversely affect the public confidence in the scheme. When making this determination, the operator takes into account the relevant information, such as advice given by the relevant Attorney-General on the nature of the offence.

The coalition does not believe this arrangement needs to change, and I'll explain a bit more about that. The bill shows Labor's lenience on crime could be benefitting individuals with serious criminal convictions. One thing I do acknowledge is that many people who are in custody serving prison time have been victims of child abuse, which has led to them going down a horrible path in life. Labor's amendment will look at only those sentenced to five years or more for offences such as unlawful killing, sexual offences and terrorism where there is a risk to the scheme's integrity. Applicants would have to go through a special assessment process.

My great concern is that people who have entered the prison system have obviously committed crimes. Again, I know this from precedent experience. There would be a capacity to rip off and rort the system. What we don't want to see is an open slab of applications go through without special assessment. Extortion, distributing child abuse material, possessing child abuse material, accessing child abuse material, kidnapping, robbery, armed robbery, burglary, aggravated burglary, home invasion, aggravated home invasion, carjacking, aggravated carjacking, arson and arson causing death—these wouldn't be covered. The point I make is that the special assessment can take place to make sure that No.1: it's a legitimate claim and No.2: there's no rorting. That's a concern. The bill also seeks to allow those in jail to apply for redress. The coalition believes the current arrangements permitting jailed people to apply for redress strike the right balance and should remain.

With the time I have remaining, there's another issue which I've been on about for a number of years, and that's the need for a national child sex disclosure scheme. It was first raised by the Leader of the Opposition a number of years ago. There were concerns by police and victims even of child sex abuse about how it would work. But we put a lot of time and effort into this. Speaking to law enforcement, it's to make sure we can put something in place which works well, and we'll be looking at a model from the UK called Sarah's Law. I know the Attorney-General previously came out and said, 'We need some evidence before we can do this.' I was hearing this all the time, even from law enforcement.

Can I say as a former police officer that there's a view in law enforcement that, when it comes to recidivist offenders, saying that it's not occurring is completely wrong. I commissioned a report from the Australian Institute of Criminology when I was the assistant minister. I think everyone agrees in this country that it's a highly regarded institute. We arranged for them to get data from the states and territories. Data was provided from the ACT, Queensland, Western Australia, New South Wales and Victoria. You'll be interested in this: the ACT figures were so low for recidivist offenders that the Australian Institute of Criminology didn't even take that into account. They said the data was completely wrong up in the ACT. They should be ashamed of not having data going back 15 years and saying there have only been five recidivist offenders. They didn't even take that into account. At the time, South Australia, Tasmania and the Northern Territory were unable to provide that data.

The report found, based on the information that came through, that in New South Wales seven per cent of child sex offenders were proceeded against for further sexual offences within 10 years. The evidence determined that the average reoffending for a child sex offender is roughly 10 years. On average, the victim they would target was an 11-year-old girl. The interesting and shocking thing that all these statistics show is that everyone is a victim, but it didn't matter if they previously committed an offence against a boy. They were just predators; they would target a girl. There's also been this notion in Australia and elsewhere of stranger danger—we should worry about the stranger. From my experience as a police officer in a criminal investigations branch, it is, sadly, sleepovers where offences occur. A parent or guardian allows their child to go to someone's house for a sleepover, kids party or whatever else, believing that the child's going to be cared for. No, they're not. They're actually being targeted because their parents didn't know a child-sex offender was living in the place. Offences occur 66 to 82 per cent of the time in residential locations, and up to 61 per cent involve a family member or a person known to the family. That could be someone you drop your child off with each weekend to go swimming or anything else like that.

The scheme which I think we need to put in place is the UK's Sarah's Law. I have the support of law enforcement. I thank Scott Weber from the Police Federation of Australia for raising this with all his police jurisdictions across the country. Sarah's Law comes from another tragic story where a young girl was murdered. The UK has had this in place since 2014, where a person makes an application to the police about another person. It's very confidential. The police make an assessment of the person, then they decide what information gets provided back to the individual who's made the application. A neighbour could make an application and the police might say, 'We're not going to assess that application.' First of all, they assess the application being made. Then they have face-to-face meetings. Then they determine what information should be provided. In fact, it's something that's rolling out right across the UK.

I'd like to acknowledge Madeleine West, the former Neighbours star, who appeared before the Joint Committee on Law Enforcement. Madeleine gave an insight of the tragedy that happened to her. Her offender was just convicted and sentenced to 15 years jail. Madeleine advised us that, if this person had been on some sort of register, she wouldn't have been a victim and other people wouldn't have been victims.

I call on the Labor government. I don't know why they don't support a national child sex offender register. It absolutely shocks me that they don't just support it and make it a reality. For example, you could have a single mum who gets a new boyfriend—and this happened to a family in my electorate where the lady met a guy online. He was more interested in meeting her grandkids than hanging out with her, and then she found out he was a convicted child-sex offender. The internet is a place where child-sex offenders target women to get access to their children or their grandchildren. This was from Dr Rick Brown from the Australian Institute of Criminology.

Michelle Ananda-Rajah (Higgins, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Institutional child sex abuse has lifelong impacts that compound over time. It derails life, sending people down passages lined with shame, grief and isolation. I remember a survivor who I met in the hospital ward during my rounds. Geoff was in his 50s undergoing chemotherapy for leukemia. He was a little rough around the edges, missing a few teeth, but chatty as he packed his belongings into various plastic bags. As I got to know him at his bedside, he disclosed that he had been a victim of child sexual abuse in Ballarat. I pondered the cruelty of life that would pile leukemia onto his already overloaded plate. We did our best to support him—a team of health professionals trying to scorch his leukemia but trying and probably failing to meet his psychosocial needs. How do you repair a life birthed in trauma?

One meaningful step in the process of healing is reparation. The Australian government is committed to improving the accessibility, transparency and cultural safety of the National Redress Scheme for the benefit of victims-survivors. The National Redress Scheme was established in 2018 for 10 years, following the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. These crimes—and they were crimes—occurred in polite society, right under our noses: in residential care, foster care, schools, community centres, churches and places of worship, and the juvenile justice system. The testimonies are horrifying.

A second-year review of the scheme was finalised in 2021, and some interim amendments followed. The purpose of the current amendment bill is to implement the key recommendations of the second-year review of the scheme. As at December of last year, there were over 34,000 applications to the scheme, of which around 15,000 have been finalised. Over 13,400 payments, totalling approximately $1.2 billion, have been paid out to survivors to date. As of December of last year, 506 non-government institutions are participating in the scheme, including churches, sporting clubs and organisations, schools, kindergartens, and community and charity groups. This means that the scheme now covers approximately 70,000 sites across Australia. Around 109 institutions have been declared under the funder of last resort arrangements, meaning that they are now defunct and the Australian government and/or the relevant state or territory government are underwriting them. The scale is staggering, but it's still not all of them.

There is a personal story behind each application that deserves to be heard. Martin's story is available on the scheme's website and it's worth watching. As a child, Martin, an Indigenous man, was arrested for stealing an $8 pair of jeans and was sent to a boys home. While there, he was sexually abused by people who were responsible for his protection. Martin did not talk about it for more than 50 years. After applying through the National Redress Scheme, Martin received an apology and a payment. He could not change what had happened but he did find a way to move forward that was right for him. The personal stories available on the royal commission's website are harrowing, but worth reading to understand what these people went through and how an entire system imprisoned their childhood with silence, gaslighting and fear.

Several themes were identified from the qualitative analysis that was done: the abuse reported was multidimensional, involving physical, sexual and emotional aspects; there was a pervasive culture of fear that allowed sexual abuse to flourish and that silenced victims, who were often shuffled between places; the abuse had long-term impacts to mental health, physical health, and career and education prospects, and this in turn led to ripple effects in damaging children, siblings and partners of survivors; repeated abuse and multiple perpetrators were common; abuse was preceded by a period of grooming; and the lack of training by authority figures, like health professionals, led to signs being missed or survivors not being believed.

Despite the horror of these events and the complete failure of adults—who are basically authority figures—to end these crimes, survivors were noted to display strength and courage, to have shown resilience. And many have gone on to form stable relationships in the face of adversity.

At the heart of this bill, the National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Amendment Bill 2023, is the wellbeing of survivors, which is why survivor input was key to the review process. Survivors contributed more than 450 submissions, surveys or consultations to inform the review. Additionally, all state and territory governments have been consulted and have agreed to these amendments. Note that the previous government took no active steps to engage with the relevant jurisdictions after receiving the final report in March 2021.

The Albanese government moved swiftly to organise a meeting of redress ministers in October 2022 and released the final government response in May of last year. Importantly, the government continues to encourage institutions to join the scheme, and there are consequences for those institutions that choose not to. These include public naming, restrictions on Commonwealth grant funding, and possible loss of their charitable status and associated tax concessions. The main amendments cover the following areas. The bill introduces a new reassessment process, making it fairer for survivors who may have been disadvantaged where an institution was not participating at the time their application was progressed. Where an institution identified in an application later joins the scheme, or where the government later agrees to be the funder of last resort, applicants will now have the option of having their application reassessed. The new process allows an applicant who proceeds with an application, where institutions are not participants in the scheme, to reapply and be reassessed when institutions later join. Currently, the National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Act does not allow applicants to submit further information when requesting a review of a decision. The second-year review found this position limits procedural fairness and risks the redress offered being reduced, thereby deterring survivors from requesting a review, contrary to the spirit of the scheme. We will allow applicants to provide additional information when requesting a review. The changes will also introduce a 'no worse off' provision so that redress offers are not reduced on review.

Currently, applicants who are sentenced to imprisonment for five years or longer for a single offence are not entitled to redress unless the operator is satisfied that providing redress to the applicant will not bring the scheme into disrepute. Applicants with a serious criminal conviction are required to now undergo a special reassessment process, and this is quite rigorous. The process includes seeking advice from the attorneys-general of the relevant jurisdiction; it might be the state where the offence or offences occurred and where the child abuse occurred. The special reassessment process has resulted in delays for this group of applicants. This bill limits the special reassessment process to specific classes of serious offences. These include people being imprisoned for five years or more for unlawful killing, sexual offences or terrorism offences, or where a risk to the integrity of the scheme exists. This will mean that these people will have to undergo special reassessment. This will remove a significant barrier for incarcerated survivors in applying for redress and will provide greater accessibility to the scheme for a cohort of survivors where there is an acknowledged impact of institutional child sexual abuse. Criminality is recognised as a downstream impact of child sexual abuse, with a litany of other problems that I've described.

The review identified some measures to improve the information protection framework. The changes will enable the scheme operator to disclose information to an applicant that an institution is not participating in the scheme—that is, their onboarding status. The amendment is designed to improve transparency with survivors on the steps taken by the institution they named in their application to join the scheme. This will allow survivors to make more informed decisions about their application. The need for this was highlighted by recent media concerning the status of Gymnastics Australia and the frustration by applicants who could not be advised of their status.

There are people who walk among us whose lives have been impacted by institutional child sexual abuse. It is important to amend this vital scheme to ensure it provides a continually improving model of redress. I encourage all institutions named in the applications to fulfil their moral obligation and join the scheme. As Martin says, 'I think a lot of survivors are ashamed to talk about what happened. What I'd say to people who feel ashamed and scared is: come forward and talk and go through the scheme. Get actual recognition about what happened to you. There is nothing to be ashamed about; just come forward and talk.' We acknowledge you, we believe you and we stand beside you. I commend this bill to the House.

Dan Tehan (Wannon, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Amendment Bill 2023 because it's incredibly important that we continue the work which was started under the coalition government on making sure that we've got a National Redress Scheme that works for everyone. It's incredibly important that we continue to do so in a bipartisan way because this issue is incredibly important for the survivors. All our focus has to be on making sure that we're getting the best outcomes for survivors.

I had the great privilege of putting the National Redress Scheme together, working along with the states and territories at the time to make sure that we established a National Redress Scheme. The National Redress Scheme was only able to come into operation with the approval of every state and territory. It took a lot of time and effort and a lot of negotiation to put the National Redress Scheme together because each state and territory—and especially the attorneys-general of each state and territory—obviously wanted to make sure that, for their particular circumstances, we got the scheme right. Over a number of months and a number of meetings we were able to set the National Redress Scheme up.

We knew when we set it up and came up with the first iteration of the National Redress Scheme that it would need to evolve. That's why a review process was put in place after two years. You've got to remember that when we were putting the National Redress Scheme together there were state Labor governments, there were coalition governments and obviously the coalition was in power federally.

In my role, I always wanted to make sure that the survivors themselves were front and centre and the sole focus of the National Redress Scheme. I want to thank the survivors that I met with, who told me about their personal experiences—harrowing beyond harrowing. Some of the stories that I heard at the time were so deeply disturbing that they still readily come to mind now. The survivors' honesty and willingness to tell their stories were why the Commonwealth worked so closely with the states and territories across all political persuasions to make sure we put this National Redress Scheme in place. I'd like to once again thank all those state and territory attorneys-general who worked with the Commonwealth to do it at the time.

I'd also like to mention one of those survivors, who is from my electorate. I still stay in touch with him today, and he is battling cancer at the moment. Mick, I wish you all the very best with your ongoing battle with cancer at this time, and I look forward to staying in touch with you.

The two-year review was incredibly important in terms of making sure that this scheme continued to evolve.

A division having been called in the House of Representatives—

Sitting suspended from 10:52 to 11:07

I will just go back to where I was. Governments of all political colours came together to put the National Redress Scheme together. You have to remember that, at the time, there were state and territory Labor governments, state and territory coalition governments and a federal coalition government, and everyone put those political differences aside because everyone realised how important it was that this was all about survivors. My hope is that we can continue to do that.

One of the important things we put in place was a review process so that, if the scheme did need to evolve, we could make sure that it did evolve. I think that was particularly important because everyone was determined to see two outcomes.

The first was a good and fair process to make sure that those survivors could get the compensation that they utterly deserved. There was also an understanding that, in some instances—probably in nearly every instance—no matter how much compensation was provided, it was never going to make up in any way for the wrongs that had been committed. But the idea was that, with that process, with an apology and with a determination by all governments to do everything we could to make sure that these types of heinous offences didn't occur in the future, there would be an understanding that everyone was trying to do the very best by those survivors.

The other outcome was making sure that the Redress Scheme itself was seen by survivors in particular and by the general community as honouring what it was set up to do, which was to make sure that it was all about the survivors and that people knew and understood what needed to be done.

That's why, in good faith, I hope that both the coalition and the government can sit down and work through this. We think there needs to be one change to this bill, because what we do not want to see is the scheme coming into disrepute. Some of the people who committed those offences wouldn't have to go through a special process now. We think that needs to be looked at. My hope is that the minister and the shadow minister will be able to sit down and look at that, because it is incredibly important that the community and the survivors themselves continue to have confidence in the scheme and the way it is operating. That was very much the intent when ministers across all political persuasions put the scheme together. My hope is that we will be able to continue that approach on an issue like this, which should be one of complete bipartisanship where the interests of survivors, the scheme itself and the proper operation of the scheme are absolutely paramount and are put first.

Can I say that there is still a lot of work to do. One of the things we did after we set the scheme up was to ensure that all those institutions that had been named would join the scheme. There was a lot of pressure put on those institutions to ensure that we had full coverage. I would once again call on any institution who has been named and who hasn't joined the scheme to please do so. You have an absolute moral and ethical obligation to do so, and I would call on any institution that hasn't joined to do that. I would also say to those institutions who have that I think the morally and ethically right thing for you to have done was to join the scheme. I ask those that have joined to make sure they continue to participate within the scheme with grace and understanding, knowing about the heinous things that were done to people—people from across all walks of life—under the names of those institutions. Sadly, no-one was spared. There were successful businesspeople. There were young children. There were women and young girls. You name it. This went right across every walk of life in our society, and that's why it's incredibly important that we do our absolute best to make amends for those crimes that were committed.

I commend this bill and what it is seeking to do. I ask that we continue to work in a bipartisan fashion and that there is proper discussion around some of the areas of concern so that we can continue to make sure that this scheme operates in a fully bipartisan way, which was how it was set up.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A division having been called in the House of Representatives—

Sitting suspended from 11:21 to 11:34

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I rise to speak on a crucial moment in our commitment to addressing the profound impact of institutional child sexual abuse with the introduction of the National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Amendment Bill 2023. Today again, we stand at the threshold in our nation's quest for healing and justice for all the people who were so badly wronged. I want to begin by acknowledging and recognising the courageous individuals who have stepped forward, shared their stories and advocated for justice. Their bravery propels us forward in our mission to create a safer and more just society. The National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Amendment Bill 2023 is a testament to our collective commitment to ensuring survivors are seen, heard and supported on the path of healing.

The measures in this bill are brought forward from survivor consultation, because it's their voices that have been silenced for so long. It is our job to amplify them, give them a platform and make the changes needed to improve the system to better protect survivors. I'm proud to be part of the party that stood by, believed and fought for survivors of institutional sexual assault. The original Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse was established under the former Labor government of Prime Minister Gillard. This pivotal legislation builds upon the findings of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse and reflects on the Australian government's steadfast dedication to tackling a very deeply sensitive issue.

The bill lays before us presenting us a new opportunity to take substantial steps forward in alleviating the ongoing trauma and pain experienced by survivors. While the original redress scheme was a crucial first step, this bill acknowledges the shortcomings and seeks to rectify them. It's not merely an amendment; it's a powerful statement of our government's collective commitment to creating a society where healing and hope prevail over the trauma and silence. The pace of its progress has been because the recommendations and their implications have been carefully considered to improve survivors' lives and outcomes. We want to make sure that there is justice, and through this bill we can do that and continue the journey of bringing and holding to account the institutions that turned a blind eye—in some cases deliberately—to such heinous acts. It's not a partisan issue; it's a human issue. I urge all members to stand with the government, united in our support for this vital legislation. Let us demonstrate our unwavering commitment to survivors by passing the bill swiftly and ensuring its effective implementation.

Together, we can create a more just and compassionate society. The bill recognises the need for ongoing support by strengthening partnerships with support services and providing survivors with greater access to counselling and other resources. The bill addresses another critical issue that has hindered the scheme's effectiveness, and that is accessibility. The bill eliminates unnecessary barriers, reducing the reliance on special assessments, allowing additional information during reviews and enabling applications from incarcerated individuals. This ensures a more inclusive and trauma-informed approach. The bill enhances transparency by allowing reassessments of finalised applications if new institutions join the scheme, empowering survivors with the knowledge that their cases can be reconsidered. The bill addresses concerns about the treatment of serious criminal convictions, ensuring a balanced approach that considers individual circumstances and avoids blanket exclusions.

I would especially like to highlight how this amendment will give applicants to the scheme the option to have applications reassessed if they have been finalised before the relevant institutions join the scheme or if the government has agreed to act as a funder of last resort. This means, when the institutions finally join the scheme, survivors who were previously denied justice for bureaucratic reasons can reapply and receive the compensation and voice that they deserved all those years ago.

Across the nation there are now over 600 non-government organisations participating, such as churches, schools, homes, charities and community groups, covering more than 71,000 sites. By enacting these changes, we anticipate a profound impact on the lives of survivors. By ensuring more consistent outcomes, we increase the certainty that survivors will see justice. The increased access to redress will not only provide financial security but ensure that the stories are being heard and believed. Improved support services will equip survivors with the necessary tools to cope with the lasting effects of abuse. The bill sends a powerful message that institutions must be held accountable for their actions. Survivors must not be silenced.

This reminds me of the time I met one of the survivors of institutional abuse when, in the Victoria government, we do a similar thing. I went outside and I saw this bloke, who'd obviously had a pretty hard life. He'd been in and out of incarceration. He'd really struggled with substance abuse. This was back in the days when I was smoking. I walked up to him and I said, 'Big day. How are you going? Do you want a smoke?' and he said, 'Yeah.' So I said, 'How are you feeling?' and his words have stuck with me ever since. He said, 'It's not about the money.' It was about getting that letter from the Premier and the minister at the time that said that someone finally believed him. For decades this man had been trying to tell his story and he was just pulled from pillar to post. He was being told it never happened and was having the institution involved deliberately and systematically cover it up. For him, it was about having that piece of paper that said: 'Yes. We've heard you. We hear you and we believe you.'

I think that's the most important thing. When I hear the stories of people I know who have gone through similar situations, it's the trauma they faced during decades of not being heard, not being believed and not being listened to. I know of situations where systematic cover-ups were happening out in the electorates that border mine. Children were told: 'If you say anything, you're attacking the church; therefore, you're attacking God.' That's not the case. Children should be able to speak up and should have their voices heard. It's so important, for each individual, that we listen to these stories.

I think this bill, as noted in the government's final response, prioritises survivor wellbeing, safety and health. Consideration was given to the risk concerning participation—the retraumatisation and the introducing of inequity between survivors. This bill fixes the gaps and legislates technical amendments to ensure a fairer and more consistent approach. This government's main concern has been the protection of the wellbeing of survivors. They've already gone through hell, and we owe it to survivors to make sure the redress process is as smooth as possible. Often the process of getting justice, while liberating when justice is achieved, can be long and tedious, and when the processes aren't right, it's all too painful. There are many stories of people—victims—who just don't want to come forward because they don't want to relive that trauma. They don't want to have to go through that process. It's unfair and it's wrong. I think all of us would agree that we need to address this, and address it very quickly.

Even after this scheme was initially introduced, while it did bring the justice it promised, the long delays in the application process meant many survivors were left with uncertainty and silence. I raised these complaints during the time of the former government, as residents of our electorate had been left in the dark for up to 12 months. This unnecessary delay caused extreme frustration and hurt. A process that already dredged up some of the most painful memories for people was made even harder by the seeming indifference and apathy shown by the bureaucracy. People who had been dealing with terrible emotional and physical damage were being left to deal with even more stress and pain while seeking justice. That's what this bill is fixing.

This government, the Albanese Labor government, is making sure survivors can come forward and get the compensation and validation for those crimes committed against them. Our government is making sure your voices are being heard. While it's something that should go beyond the politics, this has been a major talking point in the history of what happened. The track record of the former government was less than stellar in this area. While the renewed political will on these issues is welcome, we need to make sure that never again do we have steps that drag it backwards. We also have to make sure that the apathy that led to robodebt and destroyed the lives of ordinary Australians never happens again.

The redress process was prolonged and added to the strain for people who had been abused and unheard by the system for far too long. It's time that we just continue to get this done quickly. The bill makes sure that the scheme is supported, no matter who is in government and no matter the political will of the day.

As I said, this is an issue that should go beyond politics, as the voices of survivors should always be heard and believed. We will always stand up, advocate and legislate for survivors of institutional abuse. This is what the bill before us does today, and it's what the law will do in the future.

Amanda Rishworth (Kingston, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'd like to thank everyone who has contributed to this debate. I appreciate everyone's contributions. The National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Amendment Bill 2023 will amend the primary legislation for the National Redress Scheme for institutional child sexual abuse, the scheme, in response to recommendations from the final report of the second-year review of the National Redress Scheme undertaken by Ms Robyn Kruk AO. The review made 38 recommendations to increase access to redress and improve the scheme's operation, making it more trauma informed, efficient and, ultimately, more survivor focused. The Australian government has supported 34 of the recommendations either in full or in part. This bill builds on the action already taken in response to the review. It seeks to make legislative changes to give effect to the government's response to the remaining, more complex review recommendations. This bill is the final legislative action necessary to implement the Australian government's response to the review.

Importantly, the measures in this bill make genuine change that will have real and direct impact on survivors' experience in accessing redress through the scheme. In line with the scheme's governance arrangements, all states and territories have agreed to the amendments in this bill. The legislation currently before the parliament is part of the final response to the second-year review, which commenced in 2020 and was received by those opposite in 2021, before being finalised by this government.

I note the comments from the member for Deakin, who will move a consequential amendment that will delete provisions of the bill that narrow the scope of the serious criminal convictions special assessment process and remove the restriction on applying from jail. We will be going into consideration in detail on this amendment, but I want to make a few remarks here. This amendment will not be supported by the government, as what is contained in the bill is a measured, proportionate response and in the interests of victims-survivors. In November, when responding to the Prime Minister's acknowledgement of the fifth anniversary of the apology, the Leader of the Opposition said:

I note too that the government has released its final response to the Final report of the second year review of the National Redress Scheme. The opposition thanks and supports the government's commitment to improving the scheme for survivors …

Any survivors listening to this would have assumed that, because these amendments directly go to the second-year review and the government's response, this would mean that those opposite would support these amendments. It is therefore very disappointing that, despite that commitment being made on the stage when we were discussing how important the apology was but also the royal commission and indeed the response, we have now seen the opposition backtrack on that public commitment to try to interfere with the government's response.

I want to make a couple of comments. First, I note the member for Deakin's remarks on the bill's amendments regarding serious criminal convictions and applying from jail and the impact they would have on the scheme's demand, leading to longer wait times for other survivors. Any applicant who applies from jail or who otherwise would have been impacted by the special assessment is not given more swift access to the scheme. The assertion by the member for Deakin is incorrect. These applicants, once determined to be eligible to apply, are given the same access to the scheme as other applicants. I further note remarks made by the member for Deakin that allowing this cohort of survivors who are eligible for the scheme to have easier access to the scheme will increase the wait times for other survivors. It's a pretty novel approach, and I'm pretty disappointed that the member for Deakin has suggested that restricting access to the scheme for one group will ensure that there is a faster processing time. In fact, the answer to this is to put more resources into the scheme, which is exactly what this government has done. We have recognised the increases in the scheme's demand and have allocated $148.1 million in the 2023-24 budget to ensure that there is smooth implementation and processing.

I'll go to the interjections by the member, because, once again, what the Leader of the Opposition signalled was a bipartisan approach, and we now have the politics played by the member for Deakin. The review recommended that the eligibility to the scheme be extended for all applicants with a criminal conviction, including the most serious, and without any safeguards. This government, together with the states and territories, did not accept this recommendation. All Australian governments agreed to maintain the current special assessment process for particularly serious offences, namely unlawful killing, terrorism and sexual offences, and the operator's discretion to refer applicants to the special assessment process. These applicants will still be required to apply for special assessment and receive approval from the scheme's operator consistent with the current practice in order to apply for redress. This process has not changed from that established when those opposite were in government.

The special assessment process requires a scheme operator to seek the advice of a state or territory Attorney-General or a nominated senior official in the jurisdiction where the abuse occurred and give greater weight to their advice and other factors. This is a time-consuming process, and, as the data shows, 91 per cent of applicants with a criminal conviction carrying a custodial sentence over five years are not prevented from applying for redress. This is under those opposite's operating procedures. This change will support scheme efficiencies and contribute to faster processing times for all survivors applying for redress.

I note the member for Deakin listed a number of offences that, in his view, were sufficiently serious and would be excluded from the requirement to undergo the special assessment process. I'm not going to read all of them, but I would suggest that arson causing death is an unlawful killing, and so I think there is some sobriety that needs to be taken to this to make sure that we are considering this in a dispassionate way and in a way that is about putting survivors at the scheme. With references to other offences listed by members, it's the operator's discretion to refer an applicant who has received a custodial sentence of over five years for any offence. As I said, 91 per cent of those applicants currently going through that process are approved. They are not prevented from applying for redress.

As of 26 January 2024, the scheme had received 1,768 applications from people who had indicated a serious criminal conviction of five years or more. Of the applications that have had the special assessment process completed, as I've said, 91 per cent of applicants have not been prevented from applying for redress. As of 26 January 2024, the scheme had received about 905 applications from people who had indicated they were applying from jail under the exceptional circumstances. Of the applications that have had the special assessment process completed, 92 per cent of applicants have been granted exceptional circumstances to apply from jail.

I also note the member's remarks regarding the changes in the bill for applicants in jail, seeking an explanation from the government as to why these applicants should be given unrestricted access to the scheme. Currently all applicants who are in jail must demonstrate exceptional circumstances in order to apply. Exceptional circumstances usually include that they will still be in jail at the scheme's sunset. The restriction on applying from jail disproportionally impacts First Nations applicants in Western Australia and the Northern Territory. Importantly, the changes will provide immediate access to these survivors.

The changes this government has brought to parliament are measured and in recognition of the lifelong impacts of child sexual abuse. I'm disappointed that the member for Deakin is laughing at these things. This is an absolutely serious issue that we have listened to victims-survivors and the bipartisanship nature of this. The rank politics on display right now is just so disappointing. We should be working in this place together for victims-survivors, and they should see that we all have their interests at heart. I would like to acknowledge those members that have spoken in this debate from all sides that have indicated the bipartisan approach that they would like to take to this. I would like to thank the member for Wannon, the former Minister for Social Services, for trying to reiterate the bipartisan support for redress. I thank those who have played a very constructive role. It is important that we all work together to improve this scheme. This scheme is so important to victims-survivors. It doesn't make up for what happened to them, but it goes some way to ensuring that victims-survivors do get the acknowledgement that they deserve. This is about listening to victims-survivors. This is about careful consultation with victims-survivors, states and territories about how we make this scheme better. I hope that all of us in this place can work together to enact that and ensure that we are doing all we can to acknowledge what has happened.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.