Janet Rice (Victoria, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

Thanks, Minister. You say there's a strong argument. That's not what the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights felt. They felt that granting immunity from any civil or criminal liability means care recipients who are denied legal capacity do not appear to have access to an effective remedy for any violation of their rights. Basically, immunity from prosecution is such a significant thing, and it seems to me that it's not needed in this case. Indeed, if aged-care providers have followed all of the provisions they need to, then they're not going to be prosecuted. Why do you need to have immunity from prosecution? The Australian Lawyers Alliance, in their media release today, went on to suggest:

A possible solution is the offer of an indemnity, rather than an immunity. Such a solution would be workable based on the history of claims arising from unlawful restrictive practices in aged care. The number of recorded cases over the last 25 years is probably as little as half a dozen and not all were successful for the complainant.

They note:

There are previous examples of such indemnity schemes—most recently the indemnity scheme offered by the former Federal government for health practitioners who may be found liable to pay compensation for serious adverse events suffered by people receiving COVID-19 vaccines.

Has there been any consideration to step back from this offering of immunity and introduce an indemnity scheme, rather than immunity from prosecution?