Catryna Bilyk (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Implementation of the National Redress Scheme, I present the final report of the committee's inquiry into the operation of the National Redress Scheme, entitled Redress: journey to justice, and I move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

This report is extensive, at around 267 pages, including appendices and an easy-read summary, reflecting the depth of work undertaken over the almost two years, to the day, taken to complete this inquiry. On 28 November 2022, the committee resolved to inquire into and report upon the operation of the National Redress Scheme. A key focus of the committee's work was to examine the experience of First Nations applicants and applicants with disability in their dealings with the scheme. The committee also examined the accessibility and effectiveness of support services and legal advice for survivors and their advocates. This unanimous report has 29 wide-ranging recommendations that cover the full scope of the scheme's operations.

Time is running out. A critical concern of the committee is that the time left for the scheme is running out. The scheme closes to new applications in mid-2027 and ceases in 2028. Unless changes are made, some survivors could miss out on redress. To address this, the committee has recommended that the Australian government work with states and territories to extend the life of the scheme and, if this is not possible, to take steps to extend aspects of the scheme, such as the counselling services, and to allow survivors to register to ensure their applications continue to be considered after the cut-off date. We recommend increasing funding for the Department of Social Services, knowmore Legal and other support services to ensure all applications can be finalised on time, and we recommend undertaking a publicity campaign to ensure that survivors are aware of the deadline. The scheduled eight-year review should consider how the scheme will close, how to maximise the number of applications dealt with in the time remaining, and alternative options for survivors if redress cannot be offered because a responsible institution does not fulfil its intention to join.

The committee received evidence relating to the experience of survivors within the scheme. Retelling their stories as part of their application is traumatising for so many. Frankly, many of them deserve a lot better. The committee has recommended improvements to the way the Department of Social Services deals with clients, including making reasonable adjustments to application procedures, reforming the manner and language used in communicating outcomes, taking greater care to respect nominee arrangements, adjusting communication styles to meet the survivors' needs, updating the application for review of decisions to make the language plainer and remove legal jargon, and reforming how applicants can track the progress of their applications.

More than 900 institutions have been declared into the scheme, including a number that are listed on the website as 'intending to participate'.

During the inquiry, a witness drew the committee's attention under parliamentary privilege to the case of Gymnastics Australia, which subsequently, recently, became a scheme participant. We think the scheme would be improved by regular information from the Australian government on the names of institutions that have refused to join. In addition, the government should consider, before the scheme closes, what penalties will be directed to institutions that did not participate.

The committee received numerous examples of inconsistent outcomes from the scheme. We were told that sometimes two applications describing very similar events can lead to drastically different outcomes. A critical recommendation is that decisions on eligibility should be considered by panels of independent decision-makers, or, if this is not possible for all applications, those found ineligible should be automatically escalated to a panel review. Further, we heard that a number of applicants are afraid to ask for a review of their decision. To address this, we recommend the legislation be amended to especially provide that a review of a redress determination cannot result in an offer being reduced or reversed. We think greater transparency and support to applicants would assist them to include relevant information in their applications.

The scheme is complex to navigate for survivors, and there is confusion about the landscape, which now includes a number of state based schemes. Access to sound legal advice is paramount for an inclusive scheme. The committee has made a number of recommendations regarding legal issues, including: providing greater encouragement to survivors to get legal advice; having the scheme pay a fixed sum to delegated legal advisers where the survivor elects to receive legal advice before proceeding with a redress application or accepting a redress offer; and introducing measures to protect successful claimants from loss. The committee also recommends the government work with states and territories to urgently address claim farming and exploitative practices. The committee further recommends that the Commonwealth encourage state and territory governments to codify in legislation the basis on which the courts may grant permanent stays, consistent with High Court rulings.

The importance of having support services available is paramount. The committee has made several recommendations regarding the better targeting of services to support survivors applying for redress. In particular, the committee recommends that funding for support services should be extended until two years after the expiration of the scheme. Among the stories of appalling abuse heard by the committee, one area that particularly stood out was the issue of virginity testing. This practice carried out on girls as young as eight years old has had abhorrent long-term effects on individuals. Alarmingly, the outcome for victims applying for redress has not been consistent. I'm pleased that, following engagement with the committee, the Department of Social Services has committed to a range of priority improvements in how claims involving virginity testing are handled. The committee recommends that a consistent approach to virginity testing in Australia be articulated, and this should be the subject of a separate inquiry.

In conclusion, these are fundamentally important reforms which we hope will ensure that the maximum number of survivors possible receive the help that they need from the scheme. This has not been an easy inquiry. By its nature, evidence has been confronting and often traumatising, not only for survivors giving evidence but for all involved with this inquiry. Before finishing, I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the efforts taken by survivors who have contributed to this inquiry. The committee acknowledges exactly how difficult it can be to relive a traumatic experience and appreciates the huge efforts taken by those in the hopes that their stories can help improve the redress scheme for all survivors. You are heard and you are believed. I'd also like to take this opportunity to thank my fellow committee members for their hard work, diligence and ongoing engagement throughout the inquiry, including the deputy chair, Senator Smith. Finally, I thank the secretariat for its support to the committee—in particular, Nathan Fewkes, inquiry secretary for most of the inquiry, as well as Andrew Bray, Kate Portus, Josephine Moa, Kate Morris, Adrian Daniel and April Stephenson for their careful handling of such sensitive material provided to the committee and their support to potential witnesses. I also thank the Parliament House Broadcasting team. I commend the report to the Senate, and I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.