Claire Chandler (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Foreign Affairs) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Royal Commissions Amendment (Private Sessions) Bill 2023. This bill amends the Royal Commissions Act 1902. If passed by this parliament, it will change the act so that a royal commission could appoint an assistant commissioner to conduct private sessions with people who want to tell their story. This is a bill that will affect every current and future royal commission. If passed by the parliament, it will allow every royal commission that conducts private sessions to appoint an assistant commissioner.

In reality, this bill came about as a result of the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide, and the community that it affects first and foremost will be our defence and veteran community. Each death by suicide in our defence and veteran community is a tragedy and the effects are far-reaching. We know that the effects of every death by suicide are felt by families, friends, parents, children, those who served alongside them and others in the community, and we know that the problem is far too prevalent in our defence and veteran community. Too many of our veterans and service men and women are dying. We owe it to them and to their families to hear their stories and to make the changes that will make a difference in the long-term. This bill goes some way to doing that, and we in the coalition will be supporting this bill.

If serving and ex-serving personnel who have lived with suicidality want to tell their stories to the royal commission, we will support them to do so. If the friends and families of those who have died are happy to talk in a private session and they're happy doing so with the assistant commissioner that this bill will create, they should be allowed to do so. We will do what we can in this place to ensure that they have that opportunity as soon as possible.

I would like to take a minute to reflect on what private sessions are and how this bill would affect them. Private sessions are a relatively recent addition to the Royal Commissions Act. The private sessions regime was introduced to support the work of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. In 2019 the coalition amended the Royal Commissions Act to allow private sessions to be used in any other royal commission prescribed by regulations.

Private sessions are not a hearing of a royal commission and a person who appears at a private session for a royal commission is not a witness. The information that they provide is not part of the evidence given to the commission and commissioners cannot use the stories told in private sessions to make findings and recommendations. They are, as I have said, private.

There are strong protections in the Royal Commissions Act to ensure that the information given in a private session cannot be disclosed. The restrictions on the disclosure of information given in a private session allow people to come forward confidentially and without fear of reprisals. They mean that people who want to share their story can choose to remain anonymous. Importantly, the legislation ensures that the restrictions continue after the expiry of the royal commission. This legislative framework is designed to support a person in telling their story to a royal commission in a way that is beneficial to them. We recognise and acknowledge that these stories often include significant personal trauma and details that are difficult to speak about publicly.

So what does this bill do? Currently only a sole commissioner, the chair of a multimember royal commission or another commissioner who is authorised in writing by the chair may conduct private sessions. The idea of this bill is that it will authorise a person who is not a royal commissioner to hold a private session, and the person authorised to do so will be called an assistant commissioner. This is a senior member of staff who will be required to be suitably qualified and have the necessary experience, at the discretion of the sole commissioner or chair of the multimember royal commission. The commissioner or the chair of the royal commission must also consider the circumstances that exist that justify the person holding private sessions before the commission, and the bill gives the assistant commissioner the same protections and immunities that are provided to a justice of the High Court.

I think it's appropriate that we take a moment to reflect on the way that this bill came to be before this chamber today. The genesis of this bill was a request from the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide. On 15 May this year, the royal commission revealed that it had received more than 1,140 requests for private sessions prior to the closing date, which was 28 April this year. It's not surprising that they have been flooded with requests. As the royal commission itself noted, sitting down with current and former ADF members, their loved ones and their mates had been incredibly powerful. We know that at the time the royal commission released that information they had completed more than 470 one-on-one sessions with people with lived experience of suicide and suicidality, which helped to identify common issues, themes, risks and protective factors.

We also know from reports in the Guardian about four weeks ago that, several days before releasing that information, they'd written to the Prime Minister. The royal commission wrote to the Prime Minister on 11 May asking for its reporting date to be extended by 12 months, and that was not a request that was made lightly. The royal commission made a careful, considered and balanced request to seek more time so that they could do their job properly. It's not the first time that they have done this. When the royal commission first requested an extension to their reporting date, the coalition granted that extension.

We on this side of the chamber recognise that the royal commission's final report will not make good reading. It will be hard, it will be uncomfortable and it will call for change. We didn't establish the royal commission to avoid scrutiny. We established the royal commission so that it would do a job. When they asked for an extension to do that job properly, we gave it to them, because the issues here are too important to be treated lightly. In granting the extension, we recognised that, regardless of politics, it is in the interests of every Australian serving member and veteran and their families, and that must be prioritised. But the current government has taken a different approach. There was a significant delay in responding to that letter from the royal commission, and then the request for an extension was denied. So, as a fallback, this commission has resorted to working on 'alternative initiatives' to meet its original reporting date, and this bill is one of those alternative initiatives.

We absolutely recognise that this bill is intended to do some good, but we should reflect on the circumstances in which it has come to this place. We don't know whether the Prime Minister ever responded to the royal commission's letter, but we know what the royal commission put into its own statement on the issue:

On 1 August, we were informed that the extension had not been granted and the Royal Commission's final report is expected to be handed down, as planned, by 17 June 2024.

In the spirit of charity and decency, we will give the Prime Minister and the Attorney-General the benefit of the doubt and assume that they did respond appropriately to the commission, but for the benefit of the Hansard and everyone in this chamber, on behalf of the opposition, let me use this opportunity to say what is not appropriate.

It is not appropriate to sit on a letter from a royal commission that asks for more time to hear from veterans and their families. It is not appropriate to wait for three months before saying no and then turn to this chamber and ask for a bill to be rushed through in a single sitting. This bill is a matter of urgency, and we are now asked by the Attorney-General's office to pass it in a week, but the urgency is of the government's making. It is a direct result of their own delay in not answering the commission's request for almost three months. The government has asked the commission to accept this bill that we're debating here today as an alternative, and I think it is suffice to say that it didn't have to be this way. This bill could have been brought on much earlier. An agreement could have been made to extend the time frame of the commission. But these are the choices that this government has made.

We in the opposition will take a different approach. We will let the record show that we support this bill, but we also would have supported the extension of time requested by the commission. We would do so because, as I said in my initial remarks on this bill, we recognise that it is veterans and their families who must come first. I certainly hope that this bill does the good that it is intended to do. As I said on behalf of the opposition, we will be supporting this bill today. I do commend it to the Senate.