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

Last night, we were finishing up the issue of 'funder of last resort'. Can the minister provide any further information around the issue of defunct organisations, where the government isn't equally responsible? Has there been any further clarification overnight of how the 93 per cent figure was arrived at? Is there any confirmation of whether those survivors that were in one of those defunct institutions will or won't be covered?

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 figure that's been used by the minister is a derived figure. I refer you to a document entitled Final information update: during our five-year inquiry. I'm not sure, Senator Siewert, if you have that document. In that document, there's a chart headed 'Proportion of survivors who told us they were abused in a religious institution'. When you look at that chart, you can see a breakdown, and I am advised that that chart assisted the minister and informed him in relation to that figure.

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

Not all survivors were abused in religious institutions and, in fact, I think it's likely that some of the survivors in defunct institutions will actually be in non-religious institutions. That's why I want to pursue this a bit further, to find out for those beyond non-religious institutions. I tried to ask this last night: are those survivors that were in defunct institutions, where the government doesn't have responsibility, not going to have access to redress?

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

Senator Siewert, it goes to the point that I was making yesterday evening. Until someone makes an application—let me just assume for a moment they say 'organisation X', and we don't know if organisation X is genuinely defunct. It's possible that organisation X may have transferred some of its property. It may be that there is a corporate structure associated with institution X that requires delving into with an examination. That was the point that I was making yesterday evening, Senator Siewert. I know the point that you're trying to make and I'm trying to assist you, but unless somebody comes out and says, 'This is my claim against this particular—'

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

You just don't want to fess up as to whether you're prepared to be a funder of last resort or not.

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

Senator Pratt, I'll take that interjection. You have to have an application by somebody to be able to ascertain the legal framework of that particular organisation. It's a pretty simple concept.

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

I do understand what the minister is saying in terms of an application. I'm trying to get to the principle here, which is what Senator Pratt was just referring to. Under these provisions—because of the way the national bill has been reworded and because there's no participating government that is equally responsible if people were abused in an organisation that is defunct—there is a bottom line which means that there are potentially survivors who will not be able to access redress because there is no ultimate funder of last resort. That's what I'm trying to articulate, and to find out from government if that is a correct understanding, whether or not someone's applied. Surely, in drafting this bill, you had that concept in mind. What happens when there is a defunct organisation, so there are no corporate responsibilities? It has disappeared. And I admit that it is probably more likely to be non-religious institutions—there could be some religious institutions—where there is no equally responsible participating government. Is that a fact or not? It seems to me that this must have come up in your negotiations with the states and when you were considering this legislation.

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

Senator Siewert, perhaps I can assist you in this way. I'm advised that the funder-of-last-resort policy must necessarily have some limitations; otherwise, it may act as a disincentive for financially viable institutions to opt in to the scheme. Importantly, the scheme's legislation facilitates non-government institutions, where they operate as an umbrella organisation, taking responsibility for defunct institutions that fall under that umbrella. In many cases it is more appropriate for these institutions to take responsibility for their defunct institutions than it would be for governments to step in as a funder of last resort. The policy is also intended to prevent non-government institutions from potentially exaggerating the state of their finances in order to have government step in. The policy provides governments with some degree of certainty as to the funder-of-last-resort liability.

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

So basically it is the case that government does not want to be the ultimate funder of last resort, for those reasons. But, as I understand it and as survivors understand it—because survivors have been raising this with us—it is the case that people from a defunct organisation, where there is no longer an organisation, will not be able to access redress, because the government is scared of those messages and has not the wit to find other ways to put in this legislation to stop that happening and to make sure those people who were abused in defunct organisations do actually receive redress. That is the fact, isn't it?

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

Senator Siewert, I've just advised you what I am instructed is the position. Yesterday evening I also canvassed the situations of governments being funders of last resort. I'm happy to repeat what I said yesterday evening: 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. I think my two statements provide you with the appropriate ambit to answer the question that you asked.

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

They do actually answer my question, and that answer is: there are some people who don't have access to redress because they were in defunct organisations. I wasn't asking about where organisations refused to opt in. We did discuss opt-in institutions yesterday, but the fact is some survivors will not be able to access redress because the government isn't prepared to act as the funder of last resort where there are defunct organisations.

I want to move on to issues related to people in jail, unable to apply for redress. The provisions are subject to the discretion of the operator. The operator may determine that there are exceptional circumstances justifying the application being made. Can you outline what are classed as exceptional circumstances?

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

On what I just read out earlier: as I said, there are parameters for governments to be funders of last resort. Can I just reiterate to you that, until somebody puts in an application—

The CHAIR: There is a point of order. Minister, resume your seat. Senator Pratt?

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

If the minister had listened to Senator Siewert's questions, they were about incarceration and not about funders of last resort. I appreciate you were busy talking to your advisers, but I just might draw the minister's attention to the question.

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

Senator Siewert, I was seeking to clarify what you'd said before—so thank you, Senator Pratt! Senator Siewert, could you kindly just repeat what you asked? I'm trying to answer and address your question. Puerile interjections from Senator Pratt are not going to assist the situation at this point.

The CHAIR: Senator Siewert, are you seeking the call?

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

Yes. To be fair, I did end my comments on last-resort funding before I asked my question. I will acknowledge that. My question was about the rules around exceptional circumstances for those in jail. The position in the legislation is that people in jail are unable to apply for redress but the operator has the ability to determine, in exceptional circumstances, if they can. I'm asking: what are those exceptional circumstances for people in jail to be able to apply?

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

People with a criminal conviction or who are serving time for a crime will be able to apply. Their eligibility will be assessed on a case-by-case basis by the scheme operator, and each case will be under the advice of the relevant Attorney-General.

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

I was asking: what are the exceptional circumstances? I'm asking particularly around those who are in jail.

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

Issues like health or whether that person is unlikely to get out of jail—these are the sorts of circumstances that will be taken into account.

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

What sort of process will be in place to enable people in jail to be able to do 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, when they apply, their circumstances will be considered. If their circumstances are about health or they are unlikely to get out—that's the sort of consideration that will be given. If there are other circumstances, then I'm advised that it will be a matter for the relevant Attorney-General to advise the scheme operator.

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

We have had the process explained to us during estimates—the process that will occur for those who have had a serious conviction, as opposed to those who are currently in jail. Will that same process of advice from the attorney-generals from each state be sought for those in jail as well? In effect, will the same process operate for both those with a serious conviction and those who are currently in jail?

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

In terms of that process, there were arguments put forward that those in jail would be unable to get the direct personal response or the counselling and support services while they're in jail. Do those arguments still hold, or is it being considered that some people in jail would be able to get those parts of the whole redress 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 each state will have to decide how it makes available or provides for those services in the jails, given that the jails are in the jurisdiction of each of those states.

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

Is this something that is going to be covered by the rules, and will there be an agreement with the states about how each state is going to operate it agreed up-front, so that it's not determined on a case-by-case basis how somebody will receive a direct response and/or counselling and support services?

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

I'm advised it will be in the intergovernmental agreement.

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

I am going to try to do this as quickly as possible, but these are the sorts of things that we want to understand about the way the scheme is going to operate. So it'll be in the intergovernmental agreement. Each state will then have prescribed a process under which this will happen if somebody applies and is, in fact, found eligible. That will all be agreed up-front, and will people be able to see those intergovernmental agreements?

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

I've been asked if I could take that one on notice.

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

Does that mean that it's going to take too long to explain it to me or that this hasn't been agreed yet?

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's a detailed answer, and not all the states have agreed in relation to that, so that's why I'm advised it's best taken on notice.

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

Thank you. That does answer my question. It's a work in progress. While we are talking about questions on notice, you took on notice quite a few yesterday. Are we able to agree, in the chamber, to a date when we will get those answers back? I'm not accusing you of sending it off to the never-never, but I just want to ensure that doesn't happen.

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

I can help you by Friday.

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

That would be very much appreciated, thank you.

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

Is that a positive thank you?

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

A positive thank you? Yes, I'm very sincere when I say 'thank you'. I do have some more questions. Could I move on to applications that can't be made in the final 12 months of the scheme? I note that this provision is, again, subject to the discretion of the operator, and that the operator may determine that there are exceptional circumstances justifying the application being made. Could you outline what would constitute these exceptional circumstances, because, in effect, this takes it to being a nine-year scheme rather than a 10-year scheme, other than under exceptional circumstances?

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's a complex answer. I can provide more information on notice and that will form part of the information that we can provide by Friday. But I would go back to the comment that I made yesterday evening that the bill does include two reviews and an annual report to parliament on the scheme.

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

I'm not sure how that relates to the question I just asked you in terms of, in the last 12 months people can't apply. Do I then take from your answer that that might change under the reviews? Sorry if I'm missing something here.

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

Insofar as those reviews may provide information, other information may come to light in relation to the scheme and, therefore, it ensures that those issues that are identified can be addressed as part of that review process.

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

Thank you for taking it on notice. Could you also take, as part of that on-notice question, whether exceptional circumstances will be outlined in the rules, please?

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

Yes. I'll do that, thank you.

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

I want to go back to the question that I was addressing a bit earlier that you took on notice. I had talked about those in jail and those who have a serious conviction. For those with a serious conviction, the process is more articulated in the legislation. Where are the provisions articulated regarding those in jail, to make it the same? We don't take that from the reading of the legislation, sorry.

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

It's in the rules.

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

There's more detail in the legislation around serious criminal convictions than there is around those in jail. They're treated a bit differently. Doesn't that mean that the issues around those in jail are more subject to disallowable instruments and change in the rules?

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

I'm advised, no. Those provisions were not able to be accommodated in the legislation due to time.

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

I'm still struggling, sorry, with your answer, going back to the 12 months of the scheme. I'm still struggling with how that's going to be addressed in the reviews. It's a fairly simple fact that the legislation says that it's only under exceptional circumstances, that somebody seeking redress in that last year can only do it through exceptional circumstances. I'm struggling with the answer to: 'What are the exceptional circumstances?' and the answer on the review, because it's the exceptional circumstances that I'm after there. I do appreciate the fact that you've suggested there may be a change to people being able to seek redress in that last year.

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

I'm told that on the review, as part of that process, exceptional circumstances can be identified and parameters of exceptional circumstances can be determined. Again, it goes back to the point that I made earlier about the importance of when an application is made and, then, examining the circumstances of that particular application.

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

Basically, what you're saying is we can look at all the information, through the reviews, in the run-up to that final year to determine the exceptional circumstances.

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

I think your question goes to the interaction of the reviews and also, basically, that last year of the legislation. The point I'm seeking to make is that it may be that, in some cases, those exceptional circumstances will not arise or will not come to the fore for a period of time; therefore, it goes to the point I was making before. As the scheme progresses, it's likely that we will see the numbers as they come through and, at least, have an assessment of what those numbers are and, if I can put it—numbers, review, people becoming more aware. They all lead to a point where, it's our hope, all those people who need to be covered will be covered. Do you see where I'm going, Senator?

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

It's good to understand the thinking and the process there; thank you, Minister. I have a question or two around direct personal response. Under the previous Commonwealth bill, a note to clause 50(1) provided for a consequence if a participating institution did not comply with the request of a survivor for a direct personal response—that is, the operator had to include details about the noncompliance in the annual report on the scheme, required under clause 122, which would be presented to the parliament by the minister. This hasn't been included in the national bill. Will it now be included in the rules?

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

Sorry; is that a clause in this bill?

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

It's not in this bill. The easiest way is for me to ask is: what has happened to the provision in the previous bill where, if a participating institution didn't comply with a request for a direct personal response, there was a requirement for it to be in the annual report? It's not there now, so I can't point to it in the current bill. I'm asking: how will that now be accommodated?

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

I'm advised it's in the instrument.

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

In which instrument? Or is it in the rules?

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

I'm told that there will be an instrument for the direct personal response.

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

Where I'm coming from there is: is it disallowable or non-disallowable?

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

My understanding is it's not disallowable.

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

Thank you. I should ask in a way so that I differentiate between rules and other instruments. Is it definitely going to be in that instrument?

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

That's the advice, yes.

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

Just so that I understand: why was it taken out of the national bill itself and put into the instrument, given that it's a pretty important part of the whole Redress Scheme, in terms of the three components? It's pretty important if a participating institution does not comply with the request for a direct personal response.

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

I'm advised it's to enable states and territories and non-government institutions to work through that.

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

I don't understand why you would need to take it out of the national bill to allow the states and territories to do that. Either they do it or they don't do it, and there is a consequence if they don't do it.

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

I'm advised that, by doing it this way, there's a degree of flexibility afforded to it in the event that it does need to be changed as a consequence of negotiations with the states and territories and the non-government institutions.

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

I appreciate that. But including it in the annual report is surely something that is—either you do it or you don't do it, from the operator's perspective.

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 reported on.

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

And that's in the instrument. Just to be clear: it will be reported on, and that bit is in the instrument?

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

Senator Siewert, I think if I could give you the outline of that, the technicalities of that—I'll take that on notice and give that to you as part of the package of information taken on notice so we can put the actual, technical answer in for you.

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

Okay. If you could take it on notice, that would be appreciated. I've got a couple of quite technical questions. I'm going to try them and see how we go. You may need to take them on notice. Under the national bill, if an applicant does not provide additional information requested by the operator within the designated period, the operator is not required to give a determination until the information is provided. Why can the operator not progress the application in the same way they can if an institution does not provide the information requested within the designated period?

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

I'm advised it's in order to not compel survivors. Sorry, let me just seek some clarification on that. Senator Siewert, I'm advised that the legislation provides the parameters in relation to compelling the institutions, but it can't compel survivors. You need the survivors to provide information, or otherwise, for their application to be progressed.

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

So what you're saying is that, if an institution is not doing the right thing and providing the information, the application will progress, and that's an incentive for them to be compliant. I can understand now what you're saying in terms of a survivor—that you don't want to have that same compulsion. I've already had survivors talk to me about filling in the form and being traumatised, and then having to take a break and maybe not engage for a while. There are potentially some issues where an application could be progressed without that information. So I'm wondering: is there going to be a process where an application could progress to a certain point without that information, and then stop until that information is gained?

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

Yes, Senator Siewert.

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

Thank you. I've got another question now which is similar to the other question that I asked around the direct personal response and noncompliant institutions. Under clause 122 of the Commonwealth bill, the operator has to include details about the noncompliance of institutions in providing information—not just direct personal response but in general—in the annual report on the scheme, which would be presented to the parliament by the minister. This is another area that wasn't included in the national bill. Is that going to be included in an instrument or the rules?

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

Senator Siewert, I'm told that it follows on from some more information that we're going to provide you with on notice. Can I include that on notice as well? I will extend the information to what you just asked as well.

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

Okay, but last time you did say it's going to be in an instrument. I appreciate you're taking the rest on notice, but can I just find out whether it's going to be in an instrument or the rules?

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

I've been instructed to just take that on notice.

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

Okay. I presume that means it hasn't been decided. Is that a correct assumption?

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

I can't add further to what I said before.

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

Can I go to the issue of no minimum payment. We've had some discussion about this, and a number of us mentioned it in our second reading contributions. What are the mechanisms that are in place to ensure that an applicant doesn't receive a really insulting low payment? Is it possible that applicants, for example, could be offered just a couple of hundred bucks? Does the government acknowledge that receiving this kind of offer could in fact be retraumatising to people and the fact that there is no minimum payment could very well retraumatise people?

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

I am advised that that will be in the payment framework, but we can provide you with some more detail on notice.

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

The payment framework is the framework that people don't get access to—sorry; the guidelines are. Did you just say you'd provide the payment framework on notice?

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

I should have said 'assessment framework'.

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

In the assessment framework that will be available shortly, how is it going to specify that? There's no minimum payment. We still don't have an answer to the question: will people end up with what some survivors have said to me are insultingly low payments? Could you tell me that without telling me to go to an assessment framework that isn't coming up till after we've voted on this?

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

I am advised that, because it's case by case, I really can't take my response any further than what I've said.

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

Sorry; this is a really, really important issue to a lot of survivors. Let me go back to fundamentals then. Why was there no minimum payment set so that we wouldn't be in the position that we're in right now, where you can't guarantee that some survivors will not get what people have said to me would be an insultingly low payment that would potentially retraumatise people? The question is: why was there no minimum payment?

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

I think this is probably an appropriate time to remind the chamber of some of the details. I know that senators have raised some points on the detail of this Redress Scheme. I think I need to not only address this point but make it really, really clearly. We have responded many times publicly, but I do want to make clear the position on this point. The royal commission made recommendations to government on elements of the scheme including redress amounts, funder of last resort and counselling. However, the key principle underpinning the royal commission's recommendations was the provision of nationally consistent redress to survivors and that the Commonwealth government had the constitutional power to compel states, territories and non-government institutions to opt into the scheme. This understanding is wrong. The Commonwealth has no power to compel the states and territories or non-government institutions to join any national redress scheme.

So, as a consequence of that, the Commonwealth has had to negotiate all the elements of the scheme, including redress amounts, counselling and implementation. Without such negotiation, there would be no national redress scheme, and survivors would not have the redress which they have waited so long to receive. I think it's really important, because a number of the comments that have been made in this chamber have been premised on the point that basically the Commonwealth has the power to compel. Can I make that very, very clear: the Commonwealth does not have the power to compel the states and territories or non-government institutions to join any scheme. As a result, we, the Commonwealth, have had to negotiate all the elements of the scheme—all the elements of the scheme—including a lot of the detail that you've asked me about. Without such negotiation, we wouldn't have had this National Redress Scheme. It's really important that all senators understand that the Commonwealth does not have the power to compel the states and territories and the non-government institutions.

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

Thank you for the history lesson! Did the Commonwealth talk to the states about a minimum payment for the very reasons that I have just articulated, where a scheme that is supposed to be helping people—and will help people, I should say—will actually end up retraumatising some people because the Commonwealth, the states and the territories and the non-government institutions did not agree on a minimum payment? That's my first question. The next question is: have you talked to the states about how you will address this issue of no minimum payment and what it means to survivors and applicants who get what they describe as an insultingly low payment?

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

I can't add anything further to what I've already said.

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

So there was no negotiation with the states? I asked: was the negotiation with the states about putting in place a minimum payment? Should I take the answer to that as no? Surely you can answer whether there were negotiations and you couldn't reach agreement or whether it just was not discussed.

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

Senator Siewert, I've canvassed this issue. I refer you to my previous answer. I cannot take it any further.

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

I take that as: no, you didn't.

Could I seek some clarification, please, around the position on abuse perpetrated by a child, which was canvassed in the DSS submission, No. 1, which says:

The Rules will exclude from the Scheme any sexual abuse perpetrated by a child, unless the abuse involved physical contact with, or penetration of, another child.

Does this mean that any peer abuse involving physical sexual contact is within the scope of the NRS? The way that response was articulated is a bit confusing, and I'm just trying to clarify that.

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

I've been instructed to take that on notice.

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

I really do appreciate the fact that some of these are complex issues and the government is willing to take questions on notice and provide answers by Friday, but I'm struggling to understand why it can't be clearer in terms of that question. Has that not been determined yet? That is what I'm trying to find out.

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

Senator Siewert, I've indicated to you that I'll take it on notice. I'm happy to provide that. As we've indicated, we'll be providing these answers by Friday.

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

Thank you. I've got a couple more issues I want to canvass. I indicate that I am genuinely trying to get through these. It would help if I didn't get everything taken on notice. People actually want to hear answers to these questions. I want to ask about the one application rule. If an eligible applicant submits an application involving sexual abuse at two institutions and only one institution is participating, will the applicant be able to access a payment that represents appropriate redress for the abuse at the participating institution and have their application held on file until such a time as another responsible institution opts into the scheme?

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. I want to go to some other issues. This scheme only applies to survivors who were sexually abused, although my understanding under the assessment framework is that, if you were sexually abused, other forms of abuse will be taken into account, such as physical abuse.

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

Presumably, the framework will have a process for addressing that.

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

Let me say that I understand that the royal commission recommendations were about sexual abuse. It didn't necessarily rule out those survivors who did not suffer sexual abuse but suffered other forms of abuse. This is a question for you, Minister. Is the government considering, or prepared to consider, how to provide support and redress to those survivors of non-sexual physical or mental abuse in another way? I'm not asking about under this scheme. I already know the answer to that. I'm asking if you are prepared to consider or are considering some forms of redress for those survivors.

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

That's a matter for the government, Senator Siewert.

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

That's why I'm asking.

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

I'm not in a position to answer that question.

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

Could you take it on notice please? I want to ask about indexation and clarify issues around indexation. We've traversed the concerns around indexation. Will that be part of the reviews that are carried out on the 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 the indexation was a recommendation of the royal commission, and it is an acknowledgment of those institutions that did the right thing. It will not be applied for money paid for medical costs or for any money that was not specifically a compensation payment, and anything beyond that is a decision for government.

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

I understand that. You said it's a decision of government. Do you mean a decision of government about whether that would be included in the review? In other words, there's deep concern, which we've canvassed in the debate, around people ending up—it goes back to the minimum payment question—with quite small payments. There's a lot of concern in the community about this. So what I was asking about goes to that fact. Will it be considered in the review? Is your answer, basically, that the government will decide that?

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

I think, clearly, it's a decision of the government at the time of the review.

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

So there's no assurance for survivors that at least the issue will be considered in the review? They're concerned about this, really deeply concerned, and now you can't even give them the comfort that at least it will be reviewed in the review process.

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

I have nothing to add to what I said earlier.

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

On the indexation, in an answer to a question I put on notice, reference No. 3, at estimates about lawyers' fees, in terms of what will be taken into consideration in terms of indexing past payments, part of the department's answer said:

If legal fees are specified as a separate component, the legal fees will not be adjusted for inflation and then deducted from the person's redress payment.

So it's just the standard legal fee that was charged at the time that will be taken out?

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's nothing to add beyond the answer that was provided to you recently by the department.

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

If there are no legal fees specified, will the department have a process for going back to the applicant to actually try and determine that, because in a lot of cases there will have been a legal fee paid?

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

I'm advised, as I said earlier, that it will not be applied for money paid for medical costs or for any money that was not specifically a compensation payment. I can't add anything further than that.

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

I'm asking what I thought was a fairly simple question, and that is: if someone just tells you they received a lump sum and doesn't give you a breakdown, will you seek to clarify whether there are expenses in that payment that were not just about compensation?

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's what I wanted to know. I've got one final set of questions around application assistance. We know it's going to be a quite lengthy process. We also know that some people have indicated it could be a retraumatising process. If an applicant wants a psychological assessment done as part of their application, for example, would the scheme fund that? What funding is available for that sort of assistance?

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

I'm advised that support will be provided during the application process. Yesterday I addressed this when I responded to a question going to support available for applicants.

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

Can you answer that question, though, on whether they will be able to get that form of assistance?

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

Insofar as my answer yesterday didn't address your question, we'll take that on notice.

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

Okay. I have a couple of other questions for you to take on notice, please. Will there be qualifications and experience requirements for those organisations or people that are providing that form of assistance? Will trauma informed practice be a requirement for agencies providing that assistance? We talked yesterday about existing relationships with therapeutic practices. Will they be able to access those existing relationships for a form of application assistance—does that make sense?

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

As I said earlier, we'll take that on notice. In light of the answer that I gave yesterday, anything additional we'll respond to on notice.

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

Thank you. Some of the therapeutic relationships that people have could well end up being part of the NRS funded network. Some might not be. Could you take on notice whether they have to be part of the relationships that are established for the NRS?

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

Yes, we will.

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

Thank you. That's the end of my questions.

Bills agreed to.

Bills reported without amendments; report adopted.