Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Environment and Water (Senate)) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'd like to direct to the minister a question asking her to explain why the government chose a maximum compensation payment of $150,000 rather than the $200,000 recommended by the royal commission.

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The limit of the compensation was agreed between state and territory governments, the Commonwealth and non-government institutions. The Commonwealth has structured the compensation payment system so that the average payment is $11,000 more than that recommended by the royal commission.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Environment and Water (Senate)) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is it the government's view that the $150,000 is adequate redress for those who have suffered more serious forms of abuse, noting that many have said they would have access to larger compensation in the courts?

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I refer you to my previous statement in relation to the $150,000.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Environment and Water (Senate)) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The bill has a matrix so that people can identify the level of abuse and the level of compensation that they will receive. Your answer, Minister, in no way goes to the issues of the seriousness of the abuse as it correlates to the amount of compensation. Could you address that question please.

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am instructed that if people don't choose to accept an amount under the Redress Scheme they have the option to pursue civil remedies through the legal system.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'd like to pursue this issue of the so-called $11,000 difference in the average payment level, as you have just articulated. The royal commission estimated that the average payment was $65,000—I think we've well established that during the various debates and inquiries we've been having on this—under a maximum payment of $200,000, while the NRS estimates an average payment of $76,000, under a maximum payment of $150,000. Is there any kind of guarantee that the goal of the $76,000 average payment will actually be met?

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm advised this was based on the best available information that the government had.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Could you please take us through in more detail just how you can have a cap of $200,000 with an average of $65,000, and a cap of $150,000 with an average of $76,000.

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm advised that we can't comment on how the royal commission came up with its figures or how the actuarial calculations were undertaken.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Is the community just supposed to believe the government—'Trust us that it will be $76,000 and the scheme has to start and we have to get some way down the track before we can find out whether in fact that is correct'? It's a 'trust us', when the community trusted you to implement the royal commission recommendation, which was $200,000, and you came back with $150,000 and said: 'We've got a new formula. The average payment will now be $76,000 and not $65,000, even though we've significantly reduced the cap.' How can we trust you that this is right, if you in fact can't tell us how you got to that figure?

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The bill includes two reviews—one at two years and one at eight years—to ensure issues identified can be addressed. In addition there'll be an annual report to parliament on the scheme.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That addresses the issue of 'down the track we may know that', but the community doesn't know how you got to that calculation of $76,000. If the amount of $76,000 doesn't prove to be the average, will the government lift the cap?

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm advised that's the best information available to the government. I can't assist you further than that. Those are my instructions.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Could you advise me on the other part of the question: if the reviews that you articulated show that the average is in fact not $76,000, as the government says it's going to be, is the government—if you are still the government at the time—prepared to reconsider the cap and take it back up to the $200,000?

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm instructed that the terms of the review are included in the legislation, and that will, of course, be a matter for the government at the time of the review.

Derryn Hinch (Victoria, Derryn Hinch's Justice Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, you said a few minutes ago that it is confidential and you can't tell us how the royal commission came up with their figures. We know how the royal commission came up with their figures. They held a roundtable with people like the churches, with other commissioners and with Anthony Foster. Anthony Foster came down from $500,000 to $350,000 and $250,000, and we are then told by the royal commissioner that a figure of $200,000 would be agreed on—could be agreed on—because the Catholic Church would go along with $200,000. Somewhere out of the blue, the government came up with $150,000. Was that a federal government decision, or was it a Victorian government decision or was it a New South Wales government decision?

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My answer was in relation to average payments, not the maximum figure.

Derryn Hinch (Victoria, Derryn Hinch's Justice Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We know the average is $76,000. You've gone up to that; we know that. But the figure I want to know about: who decided, who made the royal commission recommendation to your government, that the maximum figure of $200,000 should suddenly become $150,000, which was what the Catholic Church wanted you to do?

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm advised that the limit of compensation was agreed between state and territory governments, the Commonwealth and non-government institutions. And, as I indicated earlier, the government has structured the compensation payment system so that the average payment is $11,000 more than that recommended by the royal commission.

Derryn Hinch (Victoria, Derryn Hinch's Justice Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We know that the $150,000 was decided between the federal government and the state governments, because that's the figure that suddenly came out of the blue from the New South Wales government's legislation, the Victorian government's legislation and the one that was thrust on us—to my committee—as a fait accompli. The royal commission recommended to your government, so you must have recommended something to the state governments, or they wouldn't have come up with $150,000; they may have come up with $75,000. Your government was told by the royal commissioner—and the PM said last week that he has accepted all the recommendations—they came to you with $200,000. Somewhere out of the blue, somebody came up with the figure of $150,000. I want to know who did.

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I can only tell you what I am advised, and that is that the limit of compensation was agreed between state and territory governments, the Commonwealth and non-government institutions.

Derryn Hinch (Victoria, Derryn Hinch's Justice Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sorry, Minister, to badger you on this, but I know that you guys agreed to $150,000, and the Victorian government and first the New South Wales government, with their model legislation, became your Commonwealth legislation. But somebody, somewhere in the federal government, came up with an idea that we should offer the maximum, which very few people will get—that we should offer a figure which is $50,000 less than the royal commissioner recommended. I need to know—I'd love to know—who came up with that figure? I know you agreed—the federal government, the Victorian government and the New South Wales government—but who came up with the figure? Why wasn't it $160,000? Why wasn't it $25,000? You ignored the royal commission and came up with a figure of $150,000.

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I can't help you further than the answer that I have been given. I am advised, as I said to you earlier, that the limit of compensation was an agreement between state and territory governments, the Commonwealth and non-government institutions. I cannot help you further than that.

Derryn Hinch (Victoria, Derryn Hinch's Justice Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I believe that as chairman of the redress committee I'm entitled to know where the figure of $150,000 came from. I'm getting emails. Senator Siewert is getting emails from people. We're getting letters from people asking, 'How did this happen?' I cannot go back to these victims and say how they got this figure, because I do not know. And I think I'm entitled at some stage to find out.

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I cannot add further to the answer that I gave earlier. As I said, the compensation that was agreed to, the limit, was between the state and territory governments, the Commonwealth and non-government institutions. I've told you the limit of the advice that I have. I can only continue to repeat that.

Derryn Hinch (Victoria, Derryn Hinch's Justice Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I don't know whether this is possible, but can this be taken on notice? Can somebody in the appropriate department tell me, as the committee chairman, where the $150,000 came from? And then I will sit down and I'll shut up.

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I can't add any further to that. That's the information that I am provided with, and that's the information that I am relaying to you.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Environment and Water (Senate)) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I share Senator Hinch's frustration at the government's lack of capacity to provide an answer to the question of the rationale as to why $150,000 is a valid level of compensation when the royal commission recommended $200,000. Can you please identify the architecture that shows—when the royal commission said the more serious forms of abuse warrant $200,000 worth of compensation—why the government believes that that abuse is only worth up to $150,000 in compensation?

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Pratt, you have heard my answer to Senator Hinch, and I can only repeat the answer I gave to Senator Hinch.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Environment and Water (Senate)) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So you're not prepared to give any explanation of how the matrix and the scale relates to the level of injury and suffering that individuals have been caused? The government, as the architects of this bill, do not want to put forward any kind of position that says, 'What we are putting forward is an appropriate level of redress for the victims of these heinous crimes'?

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Pratt, as I've indicated to the Senate, the limit of compensation was agreed between the state and territory governments, the Commonwealth and non-government institutions, and I cannot take this matter any further.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You said it was government, state governments and non-government institutions. The bodies responsible for the abuse, the non-government institutions, are they the non-government institutions that you're talking about? Where were the survivors in all this? Were the survivors consulted?

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Siewert, I go back to my previous answer. I am advised that we could give you a list of the non-government institutions.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That would be appreciated, but could you answer now: are those non-government institutions actually the institutions where abuse occurred and who will, in fact, be paying redress?

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sorry, I don't have that, but I will add this: going back to my previous answer, it was an agreement between the states and territory governments, the Commonwealth and non-government institutions. We couldn't compel those components to a particular position, and, therefore, as I said, this was an agreement between the states and territory governments, the Commonwealth and non-government institutions.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I heard what you have said, and I heard what you just said then; but is not the court of public opinion, and the royal commission recommendation, a pretty strong compulsion for the organisations that were responsible for this abuse to actually meet a $200,000 cap, which the royal commission recommended, rather than the $150,000 cap?

In other words, you had, I'd say, the weight of the Australian community behind the government in negotiating with these institutions where this abuse occurred. Is that not correct?

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Siewert, as I've said, we could not compel the parties to this agreement. As I've said, this was the agreement that was reached, and it was reached by the states and territories, the Commonwealth and non-government institutions. I cannot take the matter further than that.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have a lot of questions, so I will conclude at least my questions on this with two other questions. I asked a number of subquestions in one question earlier, and that is: were any survivors consulted?

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My advice is yes.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I just want to have one more go at how the average was established and ask more specifically why the government isn't prepared to articulate what the calculation is that differs from what the royal commission may have done to come out with their cap and average to come to the government's cap and much higher average.

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Siewert, I'm advised that the matrix was created on the best advice to government from actuaries and stakeholders.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sorry, I will honestly try to move on in a minute, but that just raised a new question. Is that the old matrix that is no longer being used for the assessment of the redress payments? We've moved to the assessment framework approach. Is that that old matrix or a different matrix?

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sorry, I meant the payment framework.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

But the payment framework is something different now to what it was when the Commonwealth bill existed. We're now under the national bill; we've got the assessment framework. Is it one and the same thing, or is it different?

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm advised, Senator Siewert, that it's the assessment framework, and it's section 32 of the bill.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This assessment framework is—previously we were talking about the matrix as the assessment process. You've come out with the same average payment through both processes?

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm advised that the answer is yes.

Kimberley Kitching (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Siewert, are you finished?

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm finished on that area, but I thought it was just worth checking that no-one else has got questions on that area before I move on to another one.

Kimberley Kitching (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think—

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Okay, thank you. There are some questions that I would like to ask to seek clarification on some areas of the bill that I would like to understand better and also that I'm aware that many stakeholders want to understand better too. I will ask about eligibility. Could you please confirm that the wording in clause 13(1)(c) of the national bill? That clause articulates the elements of eligibility that will not exclude survivors from other elements of redress where the maximum amount of the redress payment that could be payable to the survivor is nil. I'm referring to the clause that was—

Kimberley Kitching (Victoria, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sorry, one moment, Senator Siewert. I think the minister's—

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sorry, what page of the bill? That would help. Thank you.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Clause 13(1)(c), which is page on 21. It was added into the national bill.

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sorry, Senator Siewert, why don't you start again, as that might be really helpful.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There was a clause added into the national bill from the Commonwealth bill—it's clause 13(1)(c) and it's on page 21—and it says:

… the sexual abuse is of a kind for which the maximum amount of redress payment that could be payable to the person (as worked out under the assessment framework) would be more than nil …

What I'm seeking to get on the record and to clarify is if somebody's payment is nil, because of the redress being indexed and taken off the payment, but are they still eligible—sorry, I know this can sound like double-dutch!—for the other components of the scheme if it turns out that their payment is nil, because of having received previous redress under another scheme?

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm advised that, yes, you would be eligible and, yes, you would be entitled to access other components of the scheme.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you for clarifying that. I've got some questions around the revocation of a determination, and I want to go to section—

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Could you give me the page number? It is easier.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes. Pages 34 and 35, and it relates to clause 29(2) and 29(3). In what circumstances will the rules require the operator to revoke a determination in relation to a redress application made under those clauses?

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sorry, Senator Siewert, could you break that down a bit just so we could get a little bit—

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In clauses 29(2) and 29(3) the operator must make a determination on the application, that's what clause 29 does. Clause 29(2) says:

If the Operator considers that there is a reasonable likelihood that the person is eligible for redress, then the Operator must:

(a) approve the application …

And it goes on to a number of points. Then clause 29(3) says, 'Determination not to approve an application'. In what circumstances will the rules require the operator to revoke a determination in relation to a redress application made under those clauses?

Clause 29(4) then goes on to say:

The rules may require or permit the Operator to revoke, under this subsection, a determination made under subsection (2) or (3).

These are the subsections I was just referring to. What circumstances would permit that?

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm advised that there might be circumstances where further information is made available or comes within the purview of the operator's knowledge, and so they then revoke it and remake it.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Remake a determination?

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Remake a determination.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Which may then be a negative determination?

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Or a positive.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Oh, yes. So will the rules spell out what those requirements are or what sort of information would enable someone to make that determination?

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm advised yes.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Okay. In terms of the difference between requiring an operator to revoke and permitting them to revoke—does that make sense? In what instances would they be required to do that or would they be enabled to?

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm advised that that will be in the rules along with under what circumstances that could occur. Does that make sense and answer your question, Senator Siewert?

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

At the risk of being told this is in the rules, I think it's probably a fairly easy one: will the reasons be provided to a survivor as to why a determination has been revoked?

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you. That takes me to the broader question around the rules. In answer to one of my questions in estimates—and I also would like to take the opportunity to thank the department for getting the answers back in estimates very quickly; I really appreciate it—when I was asking about the various instruments and rules, I want to seek some clarification now about some of the timing. My understanding from your answer is that the instruments that establish the framework and the direct personal response framework cannot be tabled in parliament until after the bill. I understand that we can't see the instruments until after the bill has passed. Can I ask where the process is up to in finalising those instruments?

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm advised that we're close.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If I had a buck for every time I heard 'we're close' in this place, I'd be able to fund election campaigns!

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You and I have been here a long time!

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

With all due respect, I have heard that before. Are we talking about these being done by 1 July?

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm advised that they will be done by 1 July.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Just so that I'm correct in understanding the answer that you gave on notice: they will then subsequently become publicly available?

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Will that be straightaway? As soon as they are determined, will they be made publicly available?

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm advised yes.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My understanding is that those instruments are not disallowable.

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm advised that only the rules are disallowable.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was just making sure I understood that completely. In regard to the rules, which were provided in the department's submission around the extent of the rules, I have a couple of questions. When are they going to be available?

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Could you repeat the question.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Firstly, when are the rules going to be made available?

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As soon as they are determined.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Are they going to be available by 1 July as well?

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm advised yes.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I might come back to that one.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Environment and Water (Senate)) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Previously, the minister indicated that over 90 per cent of survivors would be included in the scheme, based on the institutions that have already opted in. How much further does the government expect this figure to rise?

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm advised that would depend on the number of institutions that have not opted in, and we are talking to those institutions.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Environment and Water (Senate)) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Does the government have any plans to make sure that there's a genuine funder of last resort for those people who aren't covered by the scheme, if people are not covered by the scheme in future?

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm advised that funder-of-last-resort arrangements will apply where a government has equal responsibility with a defunct non-government institution for the abuse of a child. The relevant government will therefore pay the non-government institution's share of redress. If a survivor is abused in an institution that exists but has simply chosen not to participate in the scheme, governments will not be a funder of last resort. This approach is necessary to ensure that non-government institutions, where they have the capacity to participate in the scheme, are not disincentivised from doing so.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Environment and Water (Senate)) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Why, on that basis, have you not done more to compel organisations that should be participating to do so?

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would remind you that there is no constitutional basis upon which to compel institutions to—well, there is no power to compel.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Environment and Water (Senate)) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I've got some questions about independent decision-makers. I'd like you to clarify, please, that it is the independent decision-makers who will be deciding whether or not to make an offer of redress and the amount of the offer.

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm advised that the scheme will appoint appropriately qualified, independent assessors known as 'independent decision-makers'. Independent decision-makers will provide advice to the scheme operator on applications made to the scheme. The independent decision-makers will not report or be answerable to the government. Independent decision-makers will be able to provide survivors with access to independent and impartial internal review without subjecting them to potential retraumatisation. Independent decision-makers will be supported in their decision-making by a dedicated redress recommendation team within the Department of Human Services.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Environment and Water (Senate)) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

How will they be employed? I think you've indicated it'll be through the Department of Human Services. Are these current staff within the Department of Human Services or are they going to be contracted in?

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm advised they'll be new staff.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Environment and Water (Senate)) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So they'll be new staff. Will they be employees of the Department of Human Services or will they be under contract?

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They'll be contracted by the Department of Human Services. No, it's the Department of Social Services—I beg your pardon.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Environment and Water (Senate)) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

How much will independent decision-makers be paid to undertake this task?

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

At this stage, that hasn't been determined.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Environment and Water (Senate)) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can you rule out the possibility that, for being in a full-time role to do this kind of work, they will be paid more than survivors will receive in redress?

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I've just said that hasn't been determined, so your question is a hypothetical.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Environment and Water (Senate)) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thought I would forearm you with our concerns regarding those issues as you appoint these people. How will it be ensured that independent decision-makers have the required expertise to undertake this important and sensitive role?

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is a process of consultation with the states and the territories in relation to identifying the appropriate people to fill this role.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Environment and Water (Senate)) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I've got a question about overseas claimants. Will the minister consider working with survivor groups to identify ways to deliver justice for claimants who live overseas currently, particularly those who've suffered abuse in immigration facilities or who were child migrants?

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm advised that the legislation applies to Australian citizens or Australian residents, and that's consistent with other legislation.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to go to the issue of institutions opting in. Specifically, I want to ask about Catholic institutions. We know that most Catholic organisations are financially and operationally independent entities, and we talked about that during the inquiry into the bills. We have the Catholic Church or their entity that is being established opting in. Could you update us as to what percentage of Catholic organisations have opted into the entity. First off, I'll ask that. I'll have some other questions after that.

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm advised that we're still working through how the entity will operate.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Does that mean you still don't know how many Catholic organisations have opted in to the entity to date?

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm advised that the Catholic Church has given a commitment for total coverage. We're still working through the details of that.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can I get you to clarify? Do you mean total coverage of all Catholic organisations, even those that consider themselves very independent?

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm advised yes.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to ask a specific question, therefore, in terms of my home state of Western Australia. For example, have the Pallottine order, which ran the Wandering Mission in WA, opted in or will they be opting in?

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Siewert, I can't answer that question.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can you take on notice please to tell me specifically?

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'll take it on notice.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

When do you expect to know when all of the Catholic organisations have opted in?

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Siewert, we're still working through that. Hopefully, that will be as soon as possible.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I want to go to the independent decision-makers. Could you explain how initial determination of an application will be made so that I'm clear on how the process with the independent decision-makers is going to work?

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can we take on notice to provide you those details? I'm advised that it's actually quite a detailed answer. I'm advised that it's preferable to take that on notice.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If you could take it on notice, that would be appreciated. You're telling me that there is one; is that correct?

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If you could provide that on notice, that would be appreciated. Thank you.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Environment and Water (Senate)) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Will the government make the assessment framework public to help survivors and their legal representatives navigate the scheme? If not, why won't the government consider this?

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm advised that when it's determined it will be made public.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Environment and Water (Senate)) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'd like to ask some questions about the psychological support services available under the scheme. We understand that it's widely recognised that the impacts of institutional child sex abuse can be profound and lifelong—and I'm sure the minister understands that. Can the minister, therefore, explain why counselling and psychological care arrangements only require the states to deliver a minimum of 20 hours support?

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Pratt, I'm advised that the government has committed $52.1 million over three years to establish redress support services to assist survivors engaging with the scheme. Redress support services will be available to all applicants, including specialised support for Indigenous people, people with disability and people from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds. Support services will be available nationally and will use face-to-face, telephone, online and outreach services to ensure coverage.

Legal support services will also provide survivors with access to free trauma-informed, culturally appropriate and expert legal advice as required through the scheme. Legal support services will be available prior to application through to deciding whether to accept an offer of redress. The scheme will also support referrals for survivors to access existing Commonwealth-funded financial counsellors. Survivors will also have access, through the MoneySmart website and the redress website, to information about how to deal with large sums of money.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Environment and Water (Senate)) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There was no reference to the 20 hours of support from the states. Perhaps you could touch on that. Thank you.

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Counselling will in most cases be paid for directly to state and territory governments. They have agreed to a minimum of 20 sessions. This is in addition to the universal support provided by Medicare. For those jurisdictions that do not subscribe to these arrangements, money will be paid directly to survivors.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Environment and Water (Senate)) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So, what's the rationale for the minimum of 20 hours?

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm told it's a minimum of 20 sessions.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Environment and Water (Senate)) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Why 20 sessions?

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm advised that that was determined in consultation with state and territory governments.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Environment and Water (Senate)) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What will be in place for people who might accept a cash payment instead of support but later find themselves in need of counselling and psychological care?

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm advised that they'll still have access to Medicare.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Environment and Water (Senate)) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you. Why has the government not pursued a model of lifelong psychological care as recommended by the royal commission?

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm advised that of course we could not compel participants—or the state and territory governments and non-government institutions—and therefore we had to strike an appropriate balance between the interests of survivors and the interests of these stakeholders.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Environment and Water (Senate)) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Which states will provide the services and, in contrast, in which states will resident applicants get payments?

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That hasn't been finalised yet.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Environment and Water (Senate)) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

When do you expect that to be finalised? There must be some states that have said they'd provide services. So can you give us a more illustrative picture of where that's up to?

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm advised that it will be when they pass the appropriate legislation and then when they sign the intergovernmental agreement.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Where a state determines to provide counselling and psychological services under the scheme and they receive the tiered payments directly, rather than the survivor, will the survivor be able to access these services for the duration of their lives?

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm advised yes.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you. Will survivors be able to continue their existing therapeutic relationships where a jurisdiction has opted to provide these services under the scheme?

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That will be determined by the different states and territories.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Having spoken to many survivors, I know that sometimes it takes quite a long time to establish therapeutic relationships and to find support that actually meets their needs. What happens where a state decides that that's not the case and this upsets someone's therapeutic journey?

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm advised that the national services standards for the provision of state and/or territory based counselling and psychological care says at item 5:

The preferences of the survivor will be taken into account when developing a plan for their care.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you. That relationship will be taken into account, but it won't be required for it to be maintained?

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Siewert, I can't add to what I answered before.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will take that as making a point, in that case. Here is an issue that I raised in my second reading contribution: where survivors are receiving services under the scheme and are subsequently moved to a state or territory that isn't their declared provider, how will that operate? Will they receive a lump sum so that they can continue to receive counselling and psychological services in the new jurisdiction, or will they be considered to have had their support services provided and then there will be no further support?

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Siewert, can I take that one on notice? That's actually quite complex to answer, so we'll take that one on notice. Also, there is different applicability in different states. We will take that on notice.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you. I would appreciate you taking it on notice. But do I take it, from you having to take it on notice, that that issue has not been resolved? Would it be a fair conclusion to say it hasn't been considered?

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's because the states are working through their legislation. That's the reason we will take that on notice. And they're at different stages of the process.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

When you say they're working through their legislation about the declared provider, do you mean how they are going to handle that and what reciprocity there is with other states?

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That's correct.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Do I take it, then, that that will be determined on a state-by-state basis as each state is finalising their legislation?

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sorry, could you clarify that question?

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was going to ask about your time frame, but I think the question really is: is the resolution of this matter dependent on each state as they deal with their legislation?

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes, it will depend where they actually land on this issue.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you. Can I flip this a little bit on its head and ask: are you prepared to negotiate with the states to make sure there is a process in place to ensure that a survivor can continue their counselling if they have started it under a declared provider in a state?

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Yes.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So, people won't have to stop if they are considered, for example, to have used up their allocation? That is, under the provision of a declared provider, they won't be considered to have used that up in that state where they originally applied for redress?

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sorry, Senator Siewert, could you just—

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I really want to tie this down, because counselling and psychological supports, I think we all agree, are absolutely essential. I want to tie down that the Commonwealth has committed that if a person has started receiving therapeutic supports, counselling and psychological services under a declared provider and they move interstate, it will then be guaranteed that they can continue receiving their counselling and psychological supports.

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Siewert, we're working towards that. But, until the states land their position, we can't say that definitively.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The other issue I just want to quickly canvass as it relates to counselling and psychological supports and services is: has it been anticipated that there may be a rush to some of the providers or an increase in the demand on services by survivors and whether the states actually have sufficient services in place and existing clients won't be displaced, for example?

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'll take that one on notice, if I can, Senator Siewert.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Okay. So that issue isn't resolved?

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

At this stage we can't give a definitive answer on what actual services are available in each of the jurisdictions, but we will take it on notice.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you. In terms of the declared providers, have all states made a decision on that yet, or are we still pending decisions?

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Siewert, I'm advised that New South Wales, Victoria and the ACT have, and the rest are working through their processes.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can I just be clear. Just because they're not on that list doesn't mean that they have made a decision; is that correct? Those states have made that decision, but those that you did not list just then have not made a decision not to do that; they're just still making their decision?

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Still making the decision.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I just want to go back to the issue around people being able to access services. I asked you: for people who are part of the declared provider approach, where the states are delivering the services and they'll get access to services for the duration of their lives, does that mean that, through those services that the state commences, they will be able to access those services for the rest of their lives?

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sorry, Senator Siewert, why don't you ask that question using an example? Are you saying: if you're in New South Wales and you move to Victoria—no? Start again.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Sorry, I beg your pardon. At the beginning of my series of questions here, I was asking about where a state determines to provide these services under the scheme and receive the tiered payments. I asked, 'Does that mean that survivors are therefore covered for the rest of their lives?' and you said yes. I'm just asking you to explain how, and the follow-up to that was: is that through the services that the state is providing?

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Siewert, the counselling services are not time determined, so they don't expire.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So they don't expire, but under this process there's not a cap on the number of services that you can receive?

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It will depend on the jurisdiction and the cap that that jurisdiction will provide. Again, it gets back to the point that we made earlier in relation to the jurisdiction determining their position at this point. By the time we provide the answer to you on notice, we may well have more clarity in relation to this.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Getting more clarity would be appreciated, because people listening could think, 'I can access those services for the duration of my life,' not realising that there'll be a cap. There could then be an issue where, for the duration of your life, it's uncapped or it's available but capped. I'm seeing nodding; is that correct?

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Siewert, again, I go back to the point I made earlier: until the states land on this position, I'm not able to provide an answer to you with clarity.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you; I appreciate what you've just said. We're being asked to vote on a bill that a number of us on this side of the chamber have expressed concerns about in terms of lack of clarity over quite a few areas. We're supporting this legislation, as we have articulated, but I'm trying to establish as much as I can about how the services are going to operate; hence these questions. Having said that, on the question of counselling and psychological services, I just want to seek further clarification on whether all survivors will be able to access the 20 sessions that you articulated earlier, regardless of the severity of their abuse. There's no link between severity of abuse and the number of sessions; correct?

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's a minimum of 20.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So it's a minimum of 20. Is that available to everybody?

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

) ( ): For the ones offering state based services.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Environment and Water (Senate)) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, I'm somewhat confused by the answer that it is a minimum of 20, when some people won't need 20; I'm trying to unpack whether you're actually talking about a maximum. Why are you specifying a minimum of 20? Or are you saying that 20 is a cap or that the state has to provide for each individual a minimum of 20? You're saying that the state needs to provide them with a minimum of 20, irrespective of how many they use; is that right?

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I've said, in most cases counselling will be paid direct to state and territory governments. The state and territory governments have agreed to a minimum of 20 sessions.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Environment and Water (Senate)) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

How much is the state lumping together for counselling to get to that minimum? In terms of costing that, how are you working with the states to cost that for the purposes of a minimum of 20 when some might need more and some might need less?

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm advised that the states have agreed to a minimum of 20 sessions. As I said earlier, they are still working through some of these details but they have agreed to a minimum of 20 sessions.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm hoping this will be my last question or two in terms of counselling and psychological services. So there's the minimum of 20, and there's the $5,000 maximum of the tiered payments. It seems to me that there's a potential large discrepancy here between the states that opt in to be the providers and those that don't, and those that get access to the $1,250, the $2,500 and the $5,000. That $5,000 isn't going to go very far, so there's going to be a discrepancy depending on where you live. Is that correct?

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We're still working through this with the states. That's as far as I can take the answer to your question.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I suspect we're going to be asking lots of questions in estimates in that case. I'd like to move on. I want to go to the funder of last resort. Senator Pratt asked some questions here, so I don't have a lot more, but I do have some specific questions that canvas a different issue. Does the government envisage that some survivors will miss out on redress because the institution responsible is defunct and there is no participating government institution that is equally responsible? If so, have you got an estimate of how many?

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We don't know the number, but it will be on a case-by-case basis.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

So it is a distinct possibility that, if there is no participating government institution that is deemed equally responsible and the institution is no longer operating, those survivors will not be able to access redress, because there's no overall funder of last resort in that respect?

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I said, Senator Siewert, it would be determined on a case-by-case basis.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I understand what you're saying about a case-by-case basis, but, under this bill, this is a distinct possibility. That is correct, isn't it? I understand that it will be determined on a case-by-case basis, but it is a distinct possibility that there could be some survivors who are eligible but aren't able to access redress?

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm advised that it would need to be determined on a case-by-case basis by the scheme operator.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Environment and Water (Senate)) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Should people apply or not apply if they have been abused in an institution that no longer exists and that no level of government has participation in?

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They should apply.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Environment and Water (Senate)) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What criteria will the scheme administrator use to determine whether to grant redress or not?

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Until a person actually applies, we don't know what we don't know. When they do apply we are then in a process where we can determine the particular circumstances of that person. We can then proceed to look at the circumstances of that person. Until they do apply, for example, we may not know if the particular organisation in question is a defunct organisation. Until that person does come forward those parameters can't be considered.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Environment and Water (Senate)) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That doesn't quite answer my question. If we know that the organisation is defunct or does not exist and we know there's been no state or Commonwealth involvement, do they or don't they have a case?

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You need a person to come forward and apply. You look at the particular circumstances of that person. You determine the status of the organisation in question and then you consider it and take it to the next stage. But, unless a person comes forward and provides you with the circumstances and the detail of their circumstances, you can't in isolation make any consideration about that person's status, connections or whatever until that person comes forward and gives you the appropriate detail.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Environment and Water (Senate)) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What I'm trying to get to the nub of here is whether the government will inadvertently mislead people into applying for compensation they are not eligible for. I understand you've got to work through the details of which institution is responsible and who pays the compensation. But, if there is no longer an organisation that exists and we know that, are they or aren't they then eligible for compensation?

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I've answered this. The reality is that we do not know the circumstances of a particular person. Unless a person comes forward and provides the details of their circumstances and those circumstances can be appropriately examined, that person's circumstances or the appropriateness or otherwise of redress for that person cannot be determined. It's pretty obvious. You apply for something and then you see if you are eligible for receiving benefits from a scheme or from a particular application. I'm sure you've made application for various things in your life and, until you applied, you weren't able to ascertain whether you were actually entitled to it. I'm speaking in the hypothetical.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Environment and Water (Senate)) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think we had issues with each other on these issues in estimates. Chair, I'd like to ask the minister about the nature of the application. If we know that someone has had serious abuse committed against them, is or is not the existence of a relevant organisation a relevant factor in whether they will or will not get compensation?

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Siewert asked me a question before, and I took that on notice. I'm sure that you'll read that when it is provided.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

A little bit earlier, there was a question about the percentage of people that are covered by this scheme, and I think the government is saying it's up around 93 per cent. How can you make that claim when you can't answer these questions?

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm advised that that was the coverage amount that the minister provided, and I can't add any further to that.

Rachel Siewert (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Perhaps you could provide the information on which that assessment was based. You keep saying this is going to be on a case-by-case basis, yet you make a claim that there are that many survivors that are covered, so you must have an idea of the number of survivors we're talking about and who may or may not be covered by defunct organisations.

Concetta Fierravanti-Wells (NSW, Liberal Party, Minister for International Development and the Pacific) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will take that on notice. But I understood from your previous question that you were setting a series of parameters in relation to particular circumstances, so I didn't want to conflate the two things.

Progress reported.