Carol Brown (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Infrastructure and Transport) Share this | Hansard source

The National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Amendment Bill 2023 will benefit survivors and contribute to improving the National Redress Scheme for institutional child sexual abuse for the remaining five years of its life. Consistent with the government's policy of ongoing improvement of the scheme, it will enhance the accessibility of survivors to redress. It will give effect to the government's final response to the legislative second-year review of the scheme. The formal response was provided by the government in May 2023. The final response is provided for in this bill. In summary, the review made 38 recommendations identifying a number of administrative, policy and operational matters that need improvement to ensure that the scheme meets its statutory obligations, facilitates greater accessibility, supports its survivors and provides a more trauma informed experience that is responsive to survivors of institutional child sexual abuse.

The second-year review of the scheme commenced on 1 July 2020 and was conducted between then and March 2021. The final report was provided to the Minister for Families and Social Services at the end of March 2021. The former government implemented five recommendations in the National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Amendment Act 2021. These included recommendation 3.6, developing a simplified application and removing the requirement for a statutory declaration; recommendation 4.2, providing an advanced payment of $10,000 to eligible applicants born before 1944 or 1964 for those applicants identified as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander or those with a terminal illness; recommendation 4.4, payment by instalments; recommendation 4.5, calculation of the indexation of prior payments at the date an application is submitted; and recommendation 5.2, updating funder of last resort provisions, where an institution is defunct and no parent institution can be found or where an institution named in an application is assessed as not having the financial means to join but is willing to do so.

The measures in the bill build on both legislative and non-legislative steps taken to date in response to the review, but they effect the response to the remaining recommendations arising from the review that require further development and consultation to implement. The government is committed to the continual improvement of the scheme to achieve this objective. The bill will make the following amendments to the act. It will allow redress applicants to provide additional information with their request for review of a decision and implement a limited no-worse-off provision, limited with regard to the guiding principles of the scheme, where the information provided is not false or misleading.

It will improve the process for applicants with serious criminal convictions so that the special assessment process is required only for a person convicted of unlawful killing, terrorism or sexual offences and exceptional circumstances where appropriate. It will allow incarcerated survivors to apply for redress, expand the protected information provisions to enable additional circumstances where protected information may be disclosed, implement technical amendments to the funder-of-last-resort provisions to correct technical drafting errors and 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 and where that institution subsequently joins the scheme or government agrees to act as funder of last resort.

The amendments to the protected information provisions of the redress act are in response to recommendation 3.6 of the second-year review, the interest of transparency for survivors and in response to direct requests from institutions. These are all contained in part 3 of the bill and insert new sections 95B and 96A and make consequential amendments.

The bill, as I've said, builds on action already undertaken in response to the review and seeks to make further legislative changes. Currently, all applicants who are jailed must demonstrate exceptional circumstances in order to apply, as I've already indicated, and exceptional circumstances usually include that they will still be in jail at the scheme's sunset. The restriction on applying from jail disproportionately impacts First Nations applicants in Western Australia and the Northern Territory and will provide immediate access to those survivors.

The changes this bill has brought to parliament are measured and in recognition of the lifelong impacts of child sexual abuse. They maintain public confidence and integrity in the legislation, which has been operating for over five years now. The second-year review, as I've touched upon, recommended that the policy and guidelines regarding what is referred to as 'state sanctioned rape' or 'virginity testing' be reviewed to provide greater clarity to independent decision-makers when considering these applications. In response, the scheme sought the advice of medical ethicists and updated the guidance material to provide greater clarity for independent decision-makers.

I acknowledge the calls from advocates and survivors to instruct independent decision-makers about how to assess applicants that disclose this type of abuse or to include a definition to determine whether it is relevant abuse for the scheme. The amendment moved by Senator Shoebridge goes further than what was recommended and will not be accepted by the government. I note that this will require the full agreement of all states and territories and thorough consultation with participating institutions. To do so would undermine the independence of the scheme and the confidence in the scheme of states, territories and institutions.

I also acknowledge the significant hurt caused by institutions pursuing permanent stays prior to the High Court's decision in GLJ late last year. The government will not be supporting the amendment to open up deeds of release for an eligible group of survivors, as it will significantly shift the basis on which institutions join the scheme. The royal commission recommended that accepting a payment under the scheme would require an applicant to release the institution from any further liability. As the scheme operates on a responsible-entity-pays basis, the risk of institutions leaving the scheme is simply too great. Without their continued voluntary participation, the scheme cannot continue to operate and enable survivors to access redress.

As to the first amendment from Senator Shoebridge, accepting the recommendation would require the full agreement of states, territories and participating institutions. We are not going to delay the passage of this important bill.

Debate interrupted.