Tim Ayres (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Minister for Trade) Share this | Hansard source

It might be helpful for people listening to this debate to indicate at the outset that the government won't support any amendments in Committee of the Whole. I just want to outline the rationale for that position and then deal with the amendments moved by Senator Ruston.

The redress scheme is, of course, a partnership between the Australian government and the governments of each of the states and territories. The measures in the bill have been agreed to by all of those scheme partners. New measures outside of that agreement would need to be agreed by all of the jurisdictions, which would hold up the passage of the existing measures and delay the benefit of the changes for survivors, many of whom are elderly. In addition, any changes without proper consideration and consultation would risk the ability or willingness of the institutions who have joined the scheme to stay in the scheme, or of additional institutions to join the scheme. The scheme is premised on institutions voluntarily joining and, in doing so, committing to pay for redress where they are found responsible for abuse. State and territory governments and the Australian government use all available levers to encourage institutions to join, but there is little we could do should institutions choose to walk away. Without the participation of the institutions, there would be no access to redress for many survivors.

In terms of the amendments moved by Senator Ruston, I might focus on the matter that relates to serious criminal convictions. As I understand it, the Liberal Party tried to move this amendment in the House, in addition. The special assessment process for people who have a serious criminal conviction was implemented to protect the integrity of the scheme. Now that the scheme is past the halfway mark, the experience to date has been that the vast majority, some 91 per cent, of people who go through this process are not prevented from accessing redress. This does suggest that the policy settings can be improved so as to not unnecessarily delay survivor 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 bill streamlines the process to only require people with the most serious of offences to undergo the special assessment process, as committed to in the Australian government's final response the second-year review of the National Redress Scheme.

I sought some advice while listening to Senator Ruston's speech on the amendment. I can inform the Senate that, at least for one of the offences she has outlined, you must reasonably infer that, for example—and only for example, not to the exclusion of the other offences—that the offence of distributing child sexual abuse material would require a person to go through the special assessment process. So it is not the case and it should not be claimed that serious offences of that nature are not dealt with appropriately by the bill.

Applicants who have been prevented from accessing the Redress Scheme 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 the special assessment process where there are exceptional circumstances outside of those listed offences, if the operator believes providing redress may affect the integrity of the scheme. That is an important safeguard. It means that, where there is a criminal conviction of five years or more, the operator can require the person to undergo the special assessment process, even if the person's offence is not on the prescribed list.

The current special assessment process will not change. The operator will still need to determine whether providing redress to a 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 attorneys-general or the specified adviser of the jurisdiction where the abuse occurred and where the person was sentenced. 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 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. This is in no way detrimental to access for all survivors. There has not been and there will not be as a consequence of these changes preferential or priority status afforded as a result of the passage of this bill.