Kerrynne Liddle (SA, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Child Protection and the Prevention of Family Violence) Share this | Hansard source

That's an interesting interpretation by Senator Shoebridge of the amendment the coalition is proposing. I'll correct the record.

The National Redress Scheme was started under the coalition government in response to the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. The redress scheme recognises the trauma and injustices survivors have experienced as children in Australian institutions. It is a significant step in addressing wrongs of the past. The most recent available data tells us that at June 2023 more than 1,500 institutions were found to be responsible for abuse, nearly 11,000 people had applied to the scheme for redress and over 3,500 applicants were found to be eligible. Payments to approved applicants ranged from $10,000 to $150,000.

This bill amends the National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Act 2018—the Redress Act. It amends existing provisions and introduces new provisions. While the coalition will ultimately support this bill, we do seek amendments. The Redress Act was brought in under a coalition government and it exists to support adults who, as children, were abused in institutional care.

A participant in the scheme, locked up for stealing an $8-dollar pair of jeans, said acknowledgment that he was sexually abused by the very people who were supposed to protect him was important to him. As a victim-survivor, he encouraged people to come forward. In his words:

What I'd say to people who feel ashamed and scared, come forward and talk.

Talk to someone and go through the Scheme.

Get actual recognition about what happened to you.

Nothing to be ashamed about, just come forward, and talk.

Another survivor, who spent four years in Westbrook children's home in Toowoomba and was regularly flogged and sexually abused by staff, wanted 'recognition and justice for the suffering endured at the hands of the state', and believed redress could do this.

This scheme is about practical, meaningful, commonsense support provided by way of monetary compensation, counselling and psychological care. It also has the option of a direct personal response from responsible institutions that validate the individuals' experience. It also requires the organisations who ran the institutions to take responsibility for previous wrongdoings and contribute to the scheme in the way the survivors deem valuable to them. That is the appropriate response.

I would also like to acknowledge the Redress Support Services and the work that they do in supporting applicants to access the scheme, especially those in my home state of South Australia. In South Australia, these organisations and their committed workers include Nunkuwarrin Yunti, the Victim Support Service, the South Australian Council on Intellectual Disability and Relationships Australia South Australia. These services are free, independent and offer someone to talk to, someone to help fill out forms and someone to speak to the National Redress Scheme on behalf of applicants. Specialist support services are available for people living with disability, people from culturally and linguistically diverse communities, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, carers and former child migrants.

When the redress scheme was first set up by the coalition government in 2018, it was with the intention that the scheme evolve. So it was, in June 2020, the then Minister for Families and Social Services, Senator Anne Ruston, my state colleague, announced an independent review. The review's task was to identify the gaps and areas where the scheme could be made stronger and ensure fairness for survivors. It contained 38 recommendations to improve survivor participation and to enhance the operation of the scheme.

Twenty-five of the recommendations were immediately prioritised in the former coalition government's response in late 2021. In the 2021-22 budget, more than $80 million over four years was allocated to progress action on these recommendations. The coalition made efforts to balance the review recommendations with potential impacts on institutions participating in the scheme. An independent review is the way to approach any change to such an important scheme. Where is that process that informs the changes before us today?

As a Liberal senator for South Australia, I am particularly proud that it was the former South Australian Liberal government, led by former premier Steven Marshall, who signed up my state to the National Redress Scheme. Some truth-telling: I note that the previous South Australia Labor government refused to sign up to the National Redress Scheme—a shameful act of partisan politics.

This Labor government claim the moral high ground on so many social and community issues, but they have no conviction. They overpromise and underdeliver. This bill demonstrates Labor's leniency on crime, giving those with serious criminal convictions access to the fast-track redress process. The scheme's changes mean those who have committed the following serious crimes can apply through the fast-track process rather than through the special assessment process. I'll read them out. This means: extortion; distributing, accessing and possessing child abuse material; kidnapping; robbery; armed robbery; burglary and aggravated burglary; home invasion and aggravated home invasion; carjacking and aggravated carjacking; and arson—very serious crimes with real people who are victims-survivors. With this bill and its changes to the special assessment process, the Labor government is inadvertently choosing to narrow their definition of what constitutes a serious crime to those who have committed terrorism, unlawful killing and sexual offences. There is no legitimacy in this leniency—none.

It also allows those in jail to apply. At this time, that requires permission from the relevant Commonwealth minister. While the coalition will ultimately support this bill, we will seek an amendment to propose changes to the special assessment process that proposes removal of restrictions that apply for people applying in jail. The scheme in its current form sets out that, if a person is convicted of an offence and receives the custodial sentence of five years or more in jail, the operator as defined under the act may determine that the person is entitled to redress. The operator is able to consider the application, providing that redress to the person would not bring the scheme into disrepute or adversely affect public confidence in the scheme.

The coalition remains of the view that there is no need to change the current arrangement of a special assessment process. It strikes the right balance. They can still claim. It does not prevent them from getting paid, as the Australian Greens have said; it is about not changing what is currently done. The Albanese government needs to be upfront with Australians and explain the process it used to inform these changes. Who was consulted? Why is this change necessary? And what are the potential unintended consequences? One of the commonsense measures in this legislation that comes directly from the second-year review introduces a new reassessment process to address potential disadvantages faced by survivors when an institution joins the scheme after their application progresses. When in government, the coalition government committed to considering the recommendation in consultation with state and territory governments, survivors, institutions and other stakeholders.

Another commonsense measure in this legislation aims to address drafting inconsistency with the original funder of last resort provisions and the Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Amendment (Funders of Last Resort and Other Measures) Act 2021, which extended funder of last resort arrangements in the redress act. What this means is that these changes will ensure that a person's redress payment and an institution's redress liability are appropriately calculated where the same institution is responsible under more than one funder of last resort category. This legislation also provides that, if the amount worked out is not a whole number of cents, the number should be rounded up to the next whole number of cents. This would be in line with other rounding provisions in the act and within the rules.

Another commonsense measure aims to allow applicants to submit further information when requesting a review of a decision. The current redress act does not allow for this. The two-year review under the coalition government found that this position limits procedural fairness and, along with the risk of a redress offer being reduced, deters survivors from requesting a review. This offers a 'no worse' provision. They won't be any worse off. That makes sense. It is addressing a procedural fairness. Yes, under the act as it is now, those who are convicted of a serious crime who are also victims are entitled to access the scheme. But, rightly, there are additional barriers and safeguards in place to ensure its integrity through the special assessment process.

How is it responsible, how is it sensible, and how is it in keeping with the intent of the scheme, which is in recognising the hurt, pain and trauma of the same type of abuse? It isn't. It does not make sense. We do not know if this is an oversight in the drafting of this bill or an error on behalf of the minister. But it should be fixed. I call on the government to support the opposition's proposed amendment to the bill, which will result in keeping the special assessment process as it currently is.