Michael Sukkar (Deakin, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move the amendment circulated in my name:

(1) Schedule 1, Part 2, page 7 (line 1) to page 9 (line 10), omit the Part.

It's not often that the minister makes your arguments so eloquently for you, but the minister did exactly that in her latest contribution. Our amendment is an amendment to plead with the government not to meddle with the processes in place that address those who have committed the most serious crimes in this country. As the minister outlined, those who are victims-survivors who have been jailed for five years or longer are not denied access to the scheme, but there are important integrity processes to ensure the scheme and its integrity are not brought into jeopardy. We are pleading with the minister not to make these changes. I think the minister rightly sounds a little embarrassed about what the government has done here. Let me outline very briefly what has occurred. Here we've got the government saying the special assessment process that currently applies for people who either are in jail or have been jailed for five years or longer is suspended other than for those who have been found guilty of the most serious crimes. We agree on that—when there are serious crimes, we agree. Where there are serious crimes, there should be a special assessment process.

The government defines serious crimes as unlawful killing, sexual offences or terrorism. Where I disagree with the minister and the government is that there are a whole raft of offences that I consider just as serious as these or serious enough that they should be subjected to the existing special assessment process. If the minister wants to disagree that these sorts of offences are serious, she's entitled to do that: extortion, distributing child abuse material, possession of child abuse material, accessing child abuse material, kidnapping, robbery, armed robbery, burglary, aggravated burglary, home invasion, aggravated home invasion, carjacking, aggravated carjacking, arson. The minister quibbles over arson causing death. Perhaps she's right; perhaps that's out. So, for that litany of crimes where you've been jailed for five years or longer, you are no longer subject to the special assessment process. This is a change that the government are making. They're changing the status quo of this program and they cannot justify why. Why are those offences where you've been jailed for five years or more not considered, in the minister's mind, to be serious offences? How on earth is distributing child abuse material not a serious offence, when you've been jailed for five years or more? Let's be frank, we all watch what happens in our supreme courts around the country, and, for you to be jailed for five years or more, we're talking about very serious crimes. You do not get jailed in Australia for five years or more for minor offences.

Let me make it very clear. As those who set this scheme up, those special assessment processes for people who have been found guilty, who are sitting in jail—

Mr Perrett interjecting—

I'll take that interjection.

Terry Young (Longman, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for Moreton.

Michael Sukkar (Deakin, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Moreton believes that someone who has distributed child abuse material, who's sitting in a jail right now, should get a fast-track application. That's what the member for Moreton is arguing. That's what the government is arguing.

Ultimately, we are moving this amendment to plead with the government to see some common sense. Accept the amendment. There are a range of other worthy amendments in this bill that, as the minister outlined, quite rightly, came out of the second-year review and are in many respects uncontentious. We're ultimately going to support the bill and we will not withdraw support for the bill on this basis, but I felt it was very important that the Australian people understood what was going on here. And I wonder if the minister really didn't understand what was slipped upon her desk for signature before this came to the parliament, because I can't believe that she would think that that litany of crimes that I've just outlined are not serious. The minister carves out crimes she does believe are serious, but apparently these are not serious enough to be amongst them. It's very surprising.

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

I rise to speak against the amendment. The government will not be supporting this amendment. The provisions in this bill have been carefully considered and have been negotiated and agreed to by all state and territory governments, along with the Commonwealth. It was done in consultation with victims-survivors and, of course, stems from the consultation done of the second-year review.

The effect of removing schedule 1, part 2, of the bill and retaining the current provisions in the act is that this group of survivors with a criminal conviction, or in jail, will be required to undergo a special assessment process or seek exemption where it may not be necessary. As the data shows, 91 per cent of applicants requiring a special assessment have not been prevented from being able to apply for redress. Likewise, 92 per cent of applicants applying from jail have been granted exceptional circumstances. In particular, I note that the restrictions on applying from jail disproportionately impact First Nations survivors in Western Australia and the Northern Territory and are not trauma informed, as they restrict a survivor's ability to choose when they apply for redress.

I will turn to the second-year review and the specific portions of the bill. The review recommended the eligibility of the scheme be extended to all applicants with a criminal conviction, including those with the most serious convictions, without safeguards. This government, and all states or territories, did not accept this proposal in full. Previously, all applicants with any conviction over five years were required to go through the special assessment process to ensure that applicants could not bring the scheme into disrepute or affect public confidence in the scheme. However, there are not any changes to the process currently in place for those with serious offences. The government has decided to maintain the current special assessment processes for serious offences—namely, homicide, terrorism and sexual offences. These applicants will have to apply through the special assessment and receive approval from the scheme's operation.

Going directly to the member for Deakin's comments: to suggest that this scheme should just be 'set and forget' from the outset is incorrect. That is why the previous government embarked on a second-year review and why we have considered these changes very carefully.

In terms of the special assessment process for people with a serious criminal conviction, it was of course implemented. The scheme has passed the halfway mark, and the experience to date has been that the vast majority, 91 per cent, of people who go through the process are not prevented from accessing redress. This suggests that the policy settings can be improved so as not to unnecessarily delay survivors' outcomes. The bill does not remove the special assessment process. It simply refines the process based on the years of practical experience to date. The Australian government and all states and territories have agreed to these changes. The bill streamlines the process to only require people with the most serious offences to undergo the special assessment process, as committed in the final response to the second-year review of the National Redress Scheme. Those applicants who have been prevented from accessing redress to date under the existing provisions will still be prevented from doing so.

Critically, the bill also includes the ability for the operator to require a person to undergo a special assessment process where there are exceptional circumstances of those listed offences if the operator believes providing redress may affect the integrity of the scheme. This is an important safeguard and it means that, where there is a criminal conviction of five years or more, the operator can require the person to undergo a special assessment process, even if the person's offence is not in the prescribed list. The current special assessment process itself will not change. The operator will still need to determine whether providing redress to the person with a serious criminal conviction for a single offence would negatively affect public confidence in the scheme. This process involves the operator asking for written advice from the Attorney-General or special adviser of the jurisdiction where the abuse occurred and where the person was sentenced. Ultimately, this change will see people who have committed the most serious offences continue to be prevented from accessing redress, where the reputation of the scheme is at risk. But it will not delay access to the scheme for most others, as they will no longer be required to undergo the special assessment process. These changes will not provide swifter access compared to other survivors. They will mean less delay for people who are not and should not be required to go through the special assessment process.

I'll sit down and rise again later. I believe my time has finished.

Michael Sukkar (Deakin, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think we're making some progress. I think the minister is almost talking herself into supporting this amendment. The minister has just given the House two quite important revelations. The first is that she has made very clear that the government rejected some portion of the recommendation on unfettered access to this scheme for everybody who had offended in the category that still requires a special assessment process—namely, those who have been sentenced to five years or more for unlawful killing, sexual offences or terrorism. The government rejected that recommendation. That is a stunning admission from the minister. So on one hand the government has rejected that recommendation. Yet it wants to change the scheme to include offences that presumably the minister does not consider serious enough to require the special assessment process.

There would almost be more credibility to the argument if the minister had said: 'We accepted all the recommendations holus-bolus. The second-year review made this recommendation and we accepted it out of hand.' But no. She's saying, 'We rejected a portion of that recommendation,' and is now arguing that the litany of offences I referred to are somehow not serious enough to require a special assessment process. So she doesn't object to a special assessment process per se. We're now getting down to quibbling over which offences should be subject to the special assessment process. The minister says, 'The only crimes that should be subject to the special assessment process are the most serious crimes.' The minister has now put on the record that they will not support this amendment. Therefore, she must not consider these as serious crimes: 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—not serious crimes. These are not serious crimes according to this Labor government. We don't object to having a special assessment process for serious crimes, yet, let's just say that you're in jail serving more than five years for distributing child abuse material, the most disgusting crime you could imagine, the exploitation of children. Guess what? You now get access to the scheme according to these changes without any special assessment process, delivered to you by this minister. And the minister has the gall to say that she's disappointed in me. I'm disappointed in you! How on earth could anybody allow this to come across their desk without scrubbing it out and saying, 'Send it back to where it came from'?

The most serious crimes, according to the minister, are subject to a special assessment process. We agree. The most serious crimes should be subject to a special assessment process, as they are under the current law. You are making a positive change to provide simpler and easier access for people who have been jailed for more than five years for extortion, distributing child abuse material, possession child abuse material, accessing child abuse material, kidnapping, robbery, armed robbery, burglary, aggravated burglary, home invasion, aggravated home invasion, carjacking, aggravated carjacking, arson.

Support the amendment. It's a sensible amendment that Australians would nod their heads in agreement with. End this madness right now, Minister.

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

Another implication of the amendment proposed by the member for Deakin would stop those who are currently in prison from automatically being able to make an application to the scheme. The royal commission devoted significant attention to prisons and juvenile justice facilities, and the prevalence of survivors in these settings was well explored. As it stands, the scheme's legislation includes a restriction on people applying from jail. This was included in the act on the assumption that it would be difficult to secure appropriate redress support services for this environment. Further, there could be a risk associated with the confidentiality of applicants. Currently, a person can apply while in jail where that person can demonstrate exceptional circumstances. Applications can be progressed while a person is in jail if they had submitted it prior to being incarcerated, and former prisoners may apply for redress. The scheme currently progresses a significant number of applications with people in jail and has made continual improvements to its operations, including in relation to providing support for people in jail and ensuring confidentiality.

In response to the second-year review of the scheme, and with the agreement of all states and territories, this bill seeks to remove this restriction. The measure will give survivors a choice to apply for redress while in jail or wait to apply upon release from the jail, making the scheme more trauma informed and survivor focused. The Australian government and all states and territory governments as partners in the scheme have agreed to this change. People in jail continue to indicate they are better supported to apply from jail because they're in a more stable environment and have access to supports, often comparing this favourably to their life outside of jail.

The measure also removes inequalities across those survivors who can have their applications progressed while being in jail and those that cannot apply. This change will apply equally to all survivors in jail. It is separate from the changes that will see fewer survivors go through the special assessment process for people with serious criminal convictions. I need to make that very clear: these are two separate measures. That is another reason we will not be supporting the amendments.

Michael Sukkar (Deakin, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On those applicants in jail, our amendment seeks to acknowledge a pretty basic view in the Australian community, and that view is: to be jailed in Australia for five years or longer—

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

No, this is anyone in jail.

Michael Sukkar (Deakin, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you. I'll continue. To be jailed in Australia for five years or longer, you really have to have committed a very serious crime, and I could go through the list again. It might be repetitive.

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

It's anyone in jail.

Terry Young (Longman, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order!

Michael Sukkar (Deakin, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The minister is two steps behind. If she'd just allow me to finish my sentence—the most serious of those are now getting preferential access or equal access to the scheme. If you're in jail though for any period, which is the amendment the minister is now talking about, I think a common sense view in the Australian public is you are doing your time for a serious crime that you've committed. You are serving a punishment for a serious crime. I think it's equally fair to say that in Australia you don't get jailed for trifling offences. We're not a country where you get incarcerated for minor offences. What the minister is now saying is that those people are no longer required to wait until they've served their debt to society. If you're in jail, you are serving time. You are partly suffering the punishment for that crime. The existing rules make very clear that you've got to wait, unless there are absolutely extenuating circumstances, including your health, until you've finished your incarceration.

The minister is now saying: 'We're going to make that change. We're going to make that change along with the other change about—

It's interesting the member for Moreton would talk about people suffering in those circumstances, given that—

Terry Young (Longman, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Moreton will withdraw that unparliamentary comment, please.

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

Nimrod?

Terry Young (Longman, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Please.

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

Nimrod was a great warrior, but I'll withdraw.

Michael Sukkar (Deakin, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

'Nimrod' is a boomer term, I think. I'm not sure what it is. This member for Moreton presumably is going to vote against an amendment that would seek to maintain the position for those who have been jailed for distributing child abuse material, possession of child abuse material, accessing child abuse material.

Now, I suspect the Labor caucus know very little about this. I'm shocked that this could get through the Labor caucus, if any scrutiny had been applied to it by their party room. You wouldn't need to be a genius—and we know no-one is going to accuse the member of Moreton for that—

Terry Young (Longman, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I haven't heard anything that's unparliamentary. If he does, I will ask him to withdraw.

Michael Sukkar (Deakin, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If any scrutiny had been applied to this, it's shocking that it got through their caucus. It's shocking it got through their cabinet. It's shocking it got passed the minister's desk. How on earth didn't the minister take one look at this, get the red pen out and put a mark through it and say, 'Come back with this excised, thank you very much'? This amendment is pleading to any vestige of common sense left in the Labor Party that the current arrangements that still provide access to the scheme for people in exceptional circumstances who are in jail or that provide a special assessment process for those criminals who have served for more than five years for an offence—the minister herself has said for the most serious of offences she's happy with the special assessment process. She just doesn't consider these to be serious crimes. I'm not sure how anyone could claim that the litany of offences I've outlined on numerous occasions here are not serious crimes. If you don't think they're serious crimes, Minister, put it on the record in black and white.

Question unresolved.

Terry Young (Longman, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As it is necessary to resolve this question to enable further questions to be considered in relation to this bill, in accordance with standing order 195 the bill will be returned to the House for further consideration.