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

As I indicated at the outset, the government's position is a blanket view about amendments to the bill for the reasons that I set out earlier, and that is that, principally, amendments would require the agreement of the other partners in the process—that is, the states and territories. That is the first basis for the government's opposition to amendments to the legislation.

I do want to take the chamber to some of the issues that are enlivened by the amendment and Senator Shoebridge's contribution. This scheme, of course, is survivor focused. It is designed, in response to the royal commission, as an alternative to civil litigation for survivors of institutional child sexual abuse. It does have a lower evidentiary threshold than what is required in civil or criminal legal proceedings. What that means is, consistent with the recommendations of the royal commission, that awards under the scheme do release institutions from other proceedings. That principle is important to the overall operation of the scheme and to the agreement of the states and territories on the one hand, but also to the participation of institutions in this scheme, which is also a fundamental underpinning of the practical and effective operation of the scheme.

The scheme offers free, trauma-informed, culturally appropriate, expert legal support services to survivors so that they have the opportunity to understand the effect that accepting an offer of redress has on their civil legal rights. This means that survivors are able to make an informed choice as to whether they wish to accept the offer that is made to them and, in doing so, release the institution or institutions and their associates and officials—excluding, of course, the perpetrator—from civil liability for abuse within the scope of the scheme, or seek remedy through other avenues.

Voiding a class of civil releases is likely to endanger present and future institutional participation. It would significantly change the basis upon which institutions agree to join the scheme and could deter institutions from joining the scheme in the future. Without the participation of the institutions in the scheme, the scheme cannot progress applications and survivors can't continue to access redress. It's on that basis that the government has a blanket view in relation to amendments. It's also the basis upon which I've outlined that we oppose the motion moved by Senator Shoebridge.