Jordon Steele-John (WA, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability is a historic opportunity for truth and justice. It was created as the result of a vast community campaign, spanning every section of our country, to create a mechanism by which we as disabled people would be able to tell our stories and to disclose the information that we have and the evidence we have gathered—speaking to the violence, speaking to the abuse, speaking to the exploitation and neglect of our community. It should be the case that every person who wishes to give that evidence to the commission is able to do so, their safety guaranteed—safe in the knowledge that giving that evidence, giving that information, sharing that story, will not in any way negatively impact on them. It will not jeopardise their future employment. It will not place them at risk of harm.

The reality, however, is that right now, due to a flaw in the law which creates and empowers royal commissions, that guarantee of protection, that guarantee of privacy, cannot be given. Right now, the confidentiality of information given to the commission as confidential only remains and is retained as confidential for the life of the royal commission. This means that, when the royal commission ends, the confidentiality protection ends. That information can be FOI'd. That information can be given as evidence. This flaw in the law removes people's confidence in the protection that is needed for them to come forward and tell their stories.

This is particularly harmful in a context where we know that, if you have experienced violence, abuse, exploitation or neglect, you have almost certainly experienced systemic failure. Somebody who was charged with your protection let you down, abused you. In order to get people to come forward and tell their stories, to give the evidence to guide the investigation of these systemic failures, people must be given the confidence that their confidentiality will be protected and that giving this evidence will not do them any harm, because disabled people have been telling our stories for many decades and we are often subject to harm because we've disclosed them. We are often dissuaded from giving our evidence, and it often has a negative impact. The outcome of this absence of protection is that the disability royal commission is not getting the evidence that it needs. It is not hearing the evidence that it needs to hear in order to guide its investigation so that it can make recommendations at the end of this process—having exposed the wrongs and the cover-ups—that we, as parliamentarians, need to form the basis of legislation, which will then eliminate from our society the violence against and the abuse and neglect of disabled people.

For 18 months the government have known that this change is needed. At the very first hearing, the chair of the royal commission flagged that this change was needed. The commission then wrote to the government in February 2020 saying, 'This change is needed.' The commission stated clearly in its October interim report that the absence of these protections was serving as an impediment to the investigation, an impediment to this historic opportunity for justice. We Greens have been clear with the Morrison government: if you do not act, we will. We introduced this bill in October. We put the government on notice that this change was urgently needed. The government have failed to be forthcoming, so today this bill is being debated, and I hope it will be voted on and voted for by this chamber. It will, very simply, ensure that if evidence is given confidentially it is retained as confidential. It will provide safety and security to people giving their evidence so that they can begin the process of building up the support they need to tell their story, to come forward and say: 'This is what happened. This is who knew. This is who I tried to tell.'

We know that there are so many people in the community who worked in governmental institutions—who still work in government—who have observed the profound failure to bring light into dark places, to ensure justice is done; instead, observing cover-up and silence. We know that there are people who want to tell their stories but have not done so because of the absence of these protections. This bill solves that problem. It sorts it, as it should have been sorted 18 months ago. I commend it to the chamber in the hope that it will be voted on and passed, and that finally disabled people will have the protection we need to tell our stories, to heal and to get justice.

Paul Scarr (Queensland, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Can I first say how much I admire, and have admired since coming to this place more than 18 months ago, Senator Steele-John's passion with respect to this subject and his advocacy of this matter. I commend Senator Siewert as well, because I know she's had an integral part in maintaining the pressure, which absolutely had to be maintained, to establish the royal commission. I just want to place that on the record. We saw that passion on display once again today. I think it's fair to say that there'd be many Australians suffering under a disability today who look at you, Senator Steele-John, with great admiration.

The government agrees that there is a problem that needs to be fixed and needs to be fixed quickly, because it is absolutely essential that disabled people have an opportunity to tell their stories and that confidentiality should be maintained where it needs to be maintained. There is absolutely no question about that whatsoever. I commend Senator Steele-John for introducing this private member's bill.

The government did announce on 20 October last year—after, as I understand it, the private member's bill was introduced—that it was in the process of drafting legislation to address this very problem. It is hoped that that legislation is introduced in the autumn sittings of this parliament. As Senator Steele-John has said, it is really time critical that this legislation is introduced, because when this royal commission concludes its deliberations we must ensure that, where the confidentiality of those people who have made submissions to the royal commission is absolutely crucial, it is maintained on and from the date of the end of the royal commission. It's also important that the step be taken as soon as possible. The reason for that—and Senator Steele-John touched on this in his contribution—is that we need to send a message to everyone in the Australian community that the Australian government is aware of this issue; that all members of this Senate, including Senator Steele-John, are aware of this issue; that this issue needs to be addressed; and that this issue will be addressed. I'm happy to stand behind that statement I've just made on the record—it will be addressed before the royal commission comes to an end. So, if you have a story to tell the royal commission, please tell your story.

In preparation for this debate I read the interim report from the royal commission, which was released towards the end of last year. I want to read a quote from the front of the interim report which stands out, because I think it really sums up this debate and goes to the crux of why it is so important. The quote that introduces the interim report is, 'What is happening to people is not okay and the stories need to be told.' I commend the chair of the royal commission and the six commissioners for the work they've done, and I note that one of the commissioners, the Hon. Roslyn Atkinson AO, served with distinction in the Supreme Court of Queensland. I congratulate the Hon. Ronald Sackville and all of the other six commissioners: the Hon. Ros Atkinson, of my home state; Ms Barbara Bennett; Dr Rhonda Galbally; Ms Andrea Mason; Mr Alastair McEwin; and the Hon. John Ryan for the work which they've done. It is quite incredible that they've so far received 1,928 submissions, had 7,608 telephone conversations, issued 12 issue reports and received 468 responses—an outstanding response.

I want to take some time—and it's not happy reading—to read some of the case studies which have been drawn out in the interim report of the royal commission. I think in doing this we emphasise the need and the requirement for there to be confidentiality, because when I go through these case studies you'll see, Madam Acting Deputy President Fierravanti-Wells, the vulnerability of the people of which I will talk about in terms of reprisals and being disadvantaged or discriminated against because they told their story. In all of these cases there's a footnote:

Names changed and some details removed to protect people's identities. Narrative based on a submission to the Royal Commission.

So it's quite clear on the face of these submissions that there is a need for confidentiality to be maintained.

The first case study, which is from the victim's perspective and by a lady who's given the name 'Jane', reads that Jane:

… began having seizures as a baby, resulting in development delays and challenging behaviours. Maree—

her mother—

told us in her submission that Jane's autism wasn't properly diagnosed until her early teens.

By the time Jane was in her late teens, Maree was worn out because of lack of support. So she and her husband made the decision for Jane to live in a care home supported by a large agency. She describes it as a traumatic option but the only one possible at the time.

Maree told us that Jane was excited at the idea of living independently. But although Jane was very happy with the night and weekend staff, she had many issues with the day staff.

I can try to put myself in the position of the parents of this daughter, Jane, and the angst that they went through when trying to work out what was best for Jane. They came to a decision that Jane needed to be given the opportunity to go into a care home supported by a large agency. They made that decision in good faith. But what they found was this: Jane's behaviour management plan was never followed. Jane was subject to humiliation, intimidation and bullying.

Maree complained to the day service staff and eventually to the general manager. Her emails went unanswered and she felt that staff avoided her.

Again, can one imagine the emotional turmoil that Maree, the mother, is going through at the treatment of her daughter Jane, and what Jane is going through?

In her submission Maree describes ringing one night to speak with Jane. The staff member who answered asked if the agency had been in touch regarding the 'critical incident'. Maree hadn't heard about it. Then Jane told her she had been sexually abused by a staff member. Maree told us that when she called the agency the next morning they asked, 'Oh you think that happened? Do you want us to get the police involved?' Maree was adamant that she did. Two weeks later Jane was interviewed by the police.

Maree told us that in the 20 months it took for the case to go to trial, Jane was in a constant state of anxiety and the agency offered her no support. Jane developed a fear of new people supporting her. When new support people were introduced, she was scared of them and told Maree they were hurting her. Jane's behaviour escalated and police were called.

Maree recounts in her submission that the staff member was found guilty and sentenced to prison. The prosecutor was surprised because it is 'quite rare for a person with a disability to win a case of abuse', as they are not considered reliable witnesses. However, the conviction was overturned on appeal. Maree told us she felt that a factor in this outcome was that Jane had to engage with a series of prosecutors who lacked understanding of autistic people, while the defendant had one lawyer for the entire process.

Maree says that Jane was left angry, fearful, anxious and distrusting, and behaved accordingly. She says the service provider suggested Jane would benefit from a stay in their lockdown facility to 'help people with challenging behaviours'. Maree wanted to see the facility and a behaviour management plan, but says this never happened. Instead, she says, they placed Jane there one weekend when they were short-staffed and suggested Jane have no contact with Maree or her favourite people.

Again, can you imagine the emotional burden and toll this is taking on Maree, the mother of Jane, let alone what Jane was going through?

Maree states that when, after 10 days, she was allowed to see Jane, she was appalled at the conditions – there was nothing to do and Jane had been denied her personal possessions. Maree believes 'this place, and how she was treated, has become a trigger to the fears and nightmares' Jane still experiences.

Maree and her husband brought Jane home. Maree told us Jane was severely damaged by the experience and blamed Maree for sending her there. She said Jane was fearful of home support staff and reacted aggressively.

Maree's submission describes Jane having post-traumatic anxiety attacks. During these attacks, which are like seizures and can last for hours, she requires incontinence pads, rails on the bed, a helmet and a wheelchair. 'This is a young woman who is normally very physically able and is continent,' says Maree.

Jane is living out of home again and things seem better, but what happened to her 'continues to have an impact on her daily life … on our family and her carers. Maree told us she would like to see more comprehensive training for people working in the disability system and the legal system …

That's the story of Jane and Maree and what they went through as a family.

Then there's the perspective of an employee. Employees are in particularly perilous positions if they turn whistleblower and disclose what is happening in a facility which they believe is untoward, unethical or inappropriate. They can be the subject of persecution in terms of their employment, but it can also affect their future opportunity to obtain employment, because future employers might say, 'Well, if they blew the whistle on that employer, maybe they might blow the whistle on me.' Lena is an employee. This is her story:

When Lena arrived for her first shift as a disability support worker in a day centre, she expected it to be as advertised. 'On paper the roster of programs looked fantastic,' she told us. Participants, some with high needs, could choose different activities … 'They should have been enjoying their life, but they weren't.' Instead she was confronted with 32 people, some restrained, some wearing face guard masks and some lying on the floor. There were only two staff and Lena was told to 'get on with it the best you can'.

It goes on. That's Lena's story—an employee. Her confidentiality needs to be protected.

Then we have the story of Toby and Gavin and, again, their names have been changed and some details removed:

Toby's dad, Gavin, made a submission in which he described Toby's experiences in employment. Toby, who has moderate intellectual disability, knows kitchens. He had been working in different kitchens for businesses large and small for 15 years when he started a job in a hotel early last decade. Toby wasn't too bothered by the initial pranks … until what Gavin calls the 'bad stuff' started.

What began as 'jokes' soon became unwelcome, prolonged, repetitive, intimidating and harassing. The attacks were mostly perpetrated by a particular chef, Chad, who was often left in charge. Gavin described just a few of these incidents.

One was where Chad and his mate locked Toby in the freezer, leaving him cold and scared and screaming …

Another time they sprayed Toby's shaved head with oil and then set his head and T-shirt alight.

Chad told Toby he had to pay him $10 for every day he was kept in the job. Sometimes Toby paid, Gavin said, and, when he didn't, Chad would remind him he was keeping a total of how much Toby owed.

Sometimes Chad and his mate would stand behind Toby, grabbing his buttocks and pushing their groin into his backside shouting obscenities.

One time Chad and his mate took a large kitchen knife, made Toby close his eyes and dragged the blunt side along his arm. Next time, they promised, they would 'do it for real'.

That's the story of Toby and Gavin. I think their confidentiality needs to be protected.

Now we have the story of Dev and Jana:

Jana's son, Dev, has Williams syndrome, is autistic and has a mild intellectual disability. She told us that, in 2014, Dev was admitted to a children's hospital, where he was neglected by staff.

Dev and Jana recount how the hospital and, in particular, certain doctors, failed to do what they needed to do in order to give Dev the attention he needed. Again, I think it is important that their confidentiality is protected, so that they can have access to the medical support which they need without anyone referring to the testimony which they have given to the royal commission.

These stories go on and on and on and they are an absolute searing indictment not just of the individuals involved but of a system which has not been delivering what it ought be delivering to people with a disability in our country, living here in an advanced economy, a civilised nation. They certainly deserve better and, when their stories are told, they have every right to expect confidentiality, and I look forward to the government's legislation to give them exactly that.

Murray Watt (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Northern Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in support of the Royal Commissions Amendment (Confidentiality Protections) Bill 2020, and Labor will be supporting this bill. The bill will amend the Royal Commissions Act 1902 and make consequential amendments to the Freedom of Information Act 1982 to ensure ongoing confidentiality protections for people giving evidence to the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability. Currently, evidence that is received in private sessions conducted by the Disability Royal Commission is treated as confidential and is guaranteed to remain confidential after the commission's work is completed. However, the same privacy protections do not apply where evidence or information is received by the commission outside of a private session, even if prior to the evidence or information being given the commission indicated to the person providing the evidence or information that it would be treated as confidential and, after it was received by the commission, the material was, in fact, treated as confidential. It is quite astounding that such information will not be protected by privacy protections in the same way.

Disability advocates have argued persuasively that this may discourage some people from giving evidence to the disability royal commission. The amendments in this bill have been sought by disability advocates including the Australian Federation of Disability Organisations and also by the chair of the disability royal commission, Ronald Sackville AO QC. In fact, it is difficult to find anyone who is opposed to these amendments. Last year, the Morrison government even announced that it would introduce similar legislation yet the Morrison government is so allergic to following through on its announcements that, as is almost invariably the case, it has done nothing. We will soon find out whether the Morrison government's aversion to following through on its announcements extends to voting against legislation that would do more than implement the government's own policy commitment, a truly bizarre situation.

Let's be very clear: the disability royal commission is ongoing, and the amendments in this bill are likely to have a material impact on the willingness of people with disabilities to make submissions to the commission. There is no reason to delay the introduction of this relatively simple set of amendments, and there are plenty of reasons to expedite them. As we learned from the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, it is critical that survivors of abuse in institutional settings be allowed to tell their stories in private and that requests for confidentiality be respected and backed by legislation; otherwise, many will not tell their stories at all.

In 2013 the Gillard Labor government amended the Royal Commissions Act 1902 to allow the chair of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse to authorise a fellow commissioner to hold a private session to receive information from victims and others affected by child sexual abuse. As the then Attorney-General said at the time:

A traditional royal commission hearing setting will not generally serve as the best way to facilitate participation in the royal commission by those people affected by child sexual abuse.

For many, telling their story will be deeply personal and traumatic. While we cannot know at this time how many people will wish to participate, sadly we know that this crime has affected many in our community.

Over 8,000 personal stories were told to commissioners in private sessions during the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. Many others were able to tell their personal stories confidentially outside of private sessions, and they could do so because of the privacy protections that were inserted into the Royal Commissions Act and the Freedom of Information Act in relation to the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse.

Against that background, it is important to emphasise that the specific amendments in this bill are consistent with the privacy protections that applied to the child sexual abuse royal commission. Clearly the privacy protections that applied in relation to the child sexual abuse royal commission should also apply to the disability royal commission. That is what this bill seeks to achieve, and that's why we ask the government to support these amendments.

The privacy concerns driving the introduction of this bill are not the only issue that people with disability and advocates in the sector have raised in relation to this royal commission. The disability royal commission was established in April 2019, in response to community concern about widespread reports of violence against and the neglect, abuse and exploitation of people with a disability. It set out to investigate preventing and better protecting people with disability from experiencing violence, abuse, neglect and exploitation; achieving best practice in reporting, investigating and responding to violence, abuse, neglect and exploitation of people with disability; and promoting a more inclusive society that supports people with disability to be independent and live free from violence, abuse, neglect and exploitation.

The Morrison government dragged its feet for two years before establishing the royal commission, which Labor first called for in 2017. It was finally announced in 2019, but only at the prospect of the government losing a vote on the floor of parliament. At the time, then Leader of the Opposition Bill Shorten said:

We have to recognise that while ever we are a nation who devalues people with a disability, then we will never actually get to the root cause of violence and the prevention of violence, abuse and neglect.

But the disability royal commission has been plagued by this government's continuing disinterest in the systemic problems that exist in Australia's disability frameworks. The terms set out by the disability royal commission are at risk of not being properly investigated while the Morrison government overlooks the basic requirements of people seeking to make a submission to the inquiry.

Since the inquiry's establishment, Labor has called for the Morrison government to heed the calls of more than 60 disability advocacy groups and address the composition of the disability royal commission, to remove commissioners who have conflicts of interest and to replace them with people who have lived experience of disability and the support of the sector. The royal commission is inquiring into episodes that are highly sensitive as well as confronting for those affected. It is only appropriate that the commissioners be people who can hear such evidence objectively and without any perception that their consideration of this evidence be biased in any way. In 2019 the majority of the Senate supported a motion calling on the Morrison government to remove two of the commissioners and to replace them, with a set of positive criteria identified by the disability community. The Morrison government has ignored these concerns, and people with disability remain uncomfortable with making submissions to a royal commission overseen by former disability bureaucrats with real or perceived links to institutions of abuse and neglect.

For too long people with disability have had to reiterate 'nothing about us without us'. These calls have been frustrated by this royal commission, which has heard from more experts and carers than it has witnesses with lived experience of disability. The vetting process of expert witnesses providing evidence has been questioned following the appearance of Mr Simon Wardale, who a coroner found, in relation to the death of a disabled woman under his care, fell into error by failing to remain alert to the possibility of a serious head injury and to act decisively. Mr Wardale appeared as an expert witness as part of last September's public hearings into the use of psychotropic medication, behaviour support and behaviours of concern. That he has been provided a platform to speak on behalf of people with a disability is unacceptable and raises serious concerns about the process used by the royal commission to invite witnesses to appear before it.

Often the reason people with disability fall prey to abuse can be directly linked to the inherent power imbalances that exist in treatment or carer-patient relationships. A royal commission investigating violence against—and then neglect, abuse and exploitation of—people with disability should therefore hear from people with disability first and foremost, and properly vetted experts and carers secondarily to supplement that evidence. Despite the issues with confidence in the disability royal commission, Labor supports the people with disability and advocates who continue to fight for ownership of the inquiry. The calls to action so far made by the disability royal commission have been constructive.

In March 2020, the royal commission issued a statement of concern that the federal government had not included people with disability in the emergency planning for the coronavirus response. In August, the royal commission held hearings into the experiences of people with disability during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, revealing that the Morrison government did not mention disability once in its first pandemic response plan. The hearings heard stories such as Ricky's, who's aged 45 and in Melbourne. He was forced to survive on muesli bars for nine days while bedridden without access to a support worker when coronavirus hit. What a way to treat our fellow Australians! The oversight of 4.4 million people in a national emergency is symptomatic of the struggle that Australians with disability face in a society that, without leadership from its government, continues to exclude and overlook them.

Labor supports the finding by the royal commission that it was a serious failure that no Australian government agency with responsibility for disability policy, including the Department of Health, made any significant effort to consult with people with disability or their representative organisations during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic. In its 560-page interim report, handed down in October 2020, the royal commission noted these attitudinal and communication barriers and the high rates of violence many people experience. The report did not make a clear set of recommendations but urged the federal government to do more to support people with disability during the coronavirus pandemic. Labor is calling on the Morrison government to act immediately on the issues presented by the interim report to prevent the further exclusion of people with disability from national planning and response.

At the same time Commissioner Ronald Sackville handed down the interim report, the royal commission made a request to the government that, due to the scale of work required and the COVID-19 pandemic, the April 2022 reporting date for the final report be extended by an extra 17 months, until 29 September 2023. Mr Sackville has reasoned that the broad scope of the inquiry's terms of reference—one of the biggest of any royal commission—means no firm recommendations could be made in the interim report and the commission needs an extension to hand down a final report. He is expected to request an extension to 29 September 2023.

Labor supports the royal commission's request for an extension and urges the government to address the barriers preventing many people from making a submission before the closing date. It's almost two years into the inquiry and it is long overdue that these concerns be addressed. Labor will continue to call on the government to act so that the royal commission can maintain its integrity, and people with disability, their families and carers and the disability sector can have confidence that their evidence is heard independently and impartially.

In conclusion, Labor will be supporting these amendments. We don't see any distinction between the arrangements that were made by the previous Gillard Labor government in relation to the child sexual abuse royal commission and this royal commission into the abuse of people with disability. Arrangements were changed for the child sexual abuse royal commission to ensure that evidence could be provided confidentially, with privacy protections, outside of private sessions. We think that the same thing should be done in relation to the disability royal commission.

People with a disability have been waiting far too long for these terrible abuses and neglect to be properly investigated. We should all be doing everything we can to ensure that their evidence can be provided safely, confidentially and securely, to inspire confidence in this royal commission and to ensure that at last people with disability who have suffered abuse and neglect actually can be heard properly and securely and can have confidence that their concerns will be dealt with. These abuses have gone on too long. Confidentiality is required to make sure that they are properly addressed.

David Van (Victoria, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise this morning to speak on the Royal Commissions Amendment (Confidentiality Protections) Bill 2020. While I and the government won't be supporting this legislation, we very much take very seriously violence against and the abuse, neglect and exploitation of people with a disability. That is why the Morrison government established the disability royal commission in the first place. All forms of violence against and abuse, neglect and exploitation of people with a disability are abhorrent. We as a society cannot allow it to happen and we must take action to eliminate it from our society.

This bill from Senator Steele-John comes after issues were raised by the chair of the royal commission, the Hon. Ronald Sackville, regarding the confidentiality of information given to that royal commission. The requested amendments to the act are so that people with a disability have assurance that their information is protected both during the life of the commission and after it has concluded its work. I thank Senator Steele-John for bringing this legislation forward. His passion and interest for the disability sector are undeniable. There is no denying that Senator Steele-John had the best interests of those providing evidence to the royal commission at heart when he introduced this legislation.

While I respect the senator's intentions in bringing forward this legislation, the legislation proposed is, unfortunately, inadequate to deal with all the subsequent issues raised by Commissioner Sackville. However, while we are not supporting this legislation, the Morrison government are committed to amending the Royal Commissions Act. These amendments will address specific matters raised by the chair about the confidentiality of information given to the royal commission and other broader matters not captured in this bill proposed by the Greens.

The government has listened to people with a disability and their families and carers, as well as the broader Australian public, about the importance of ensuring people have the confidence to come forward and tell their stories. As a result of these consultations and the request from the chair of the royal commission, the Morrison government will introduce its own legislation. Our bill will ensure that people with a disability will be able to engage with the royal commission in the certainty that their information will be protected. People with a disability are equal citizens and have the right to the full and equal enjoyment of all human rights and fundamental freedoms, including respect for their inherent dignity and individual autonomy.

We established the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability in April 2019, following community concerns about widespread reports of unacceptable and abhorrent transgressions against people with disabilities. Such transgressions are not acceptable in a modern Australia; they never were and never are going to be acceptable. Since the royal commission was established, it has received more than 1,900 submissions and more than 7½ thousand telephone inquiries and has held 10 public hearings. An 11th public hearing commences in Brisbane tomorrow. It is clear from the evidence the royal commission has received that the Morrison government was right to call that commission.

The outcomes of the commission will be guided by people's lived experiences and its outcomes must be based on a true reflection of those experiences. In order for the royal commission to fully realise the scope of its inquiry, it is important that the Australian community feels comfortable and supported in fully engaging with the royal commission. It is critical that people sharing their experiences with the royal commission feel respected and that survivors of violence, abuse, neglect and exploitation have their experiences appropriately acknowledged, recognised and validated, and the Morrison government is committed to ensuring that the disability royal commission does just that.

Prior to being elected to this place, I had significant experience with royal commissions. I have advised governments and businesses through four royal commissions, so I know from firsthand experience that royal commissions already have strong protections in place and can ensure that people can engage with confidence about the protection of information and identity. These mechanisms include the use of private sessions or the use of pseudonyms in public hearings and reports of the royal commission, or through the making of do-not-publish orders.

The government has listened to the royal commission, advocates and disability supporters. We understand that the existing protections may not give people the necessary confidence to come forward and tell their stories. While there are extensive protections after a royal commission has ended, we understand there may be some concerns about the willingness of some people to come forward in this royal commission. For many people with disability and their families and carers, telling their story to the royal commission may be the first time in their life that they have disclosed their experiences of violence, abuse, neglect or exploitation. For others, it is the first time their story has been heard by someone in a position of authority. We want those people to come forward. We want people to feel confident that, if and when they come forward, they will be protected. It is for this reason that the Morrison government is making changes to the Royal Commissions Act 1902 to further these protections. These further measures will ensure that people with disability and their supporters, advocates and families will be able to recount their experiences and fully participate in the royal commission. The amendment of the Royal Commissions Act by the Morrison government is proposed for the autumn sitting of this parliament this year. These amendments will go a long way to ensuring participants in the royal commission feel the information given to the inquiry is confidential and protected.

The last thing I or the Morrison government want to do is leave the disability community concerned that, because we're not supporting this legislation today, this means we're not listening to your concerns. We are 100 per cent committed to ensuring that you are listened to and that you feel supported.

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

The Royal Commissions Amendment (Confidentiality Protections) Bill 2020 is extremely important. It addresses issues that absolutely need to be addressed in terms of being able to guarantee that people have privacy and their evidence is confidential.Senator Van has just said that he's had a lot of experience with royal commissions and that in fact people will be protected. Well, they won't be. Senator Steele-John has carefully articulated why they won't be so protected by the legislation under which people are covered at the moment if they are considering making a contribution to the royal commission. What we're trying to achieve with this bill is to ensure that people are guaranteed confidentiality and privacy in perpetuity so that they have the confidence to bring their accounts of what happened to them to the royal commission, because at the moment they do not have that confidence. This bill is absolutely essential to give disabled people the confidence to bring their accounts of their treatment to the royal commission.

I chaired the Senate inquiry into violence, abuse and neglect against people with disability in institutional settings, and the accounts that we heard during that inquiry absolutely broke my heart. There were accounts of the sort of treatment that people received not only in residential facilities but in their homes, in schools and on school buses. In fact, for every setting where a disabled person was receiving care, we heard accounts of the mistreatment and abuse—sexual, physical and verbal as well—that disabled people received. People need to feel confident that they will be protected, and they are telling us, in particular telling Senator Steele-John, that that's not how they feel.

Those on the other side should actually listen to disabled people to hear what they are saying about their lack of confidence, to hear them say they are, I think it's fair to say, afraid to give evidence. These people have already been subjected to violence, neglect and abuse—and retribution. We also heard during the Senate inquiry about the retribution and the threatening behaviour that occurs if they dare to speak out, particularly if they are still in the institutions, still being provided some level of care. If Senator Steele-John thought this wasn't important, he wouldn't have brought this bill to the chamber. He would not be asking us to debate this bill if he had not heard firsthand accounts from disabled people saying this sort of protection is necessary. Why would we waste the Senate's time in debating something like this? It is of such grave importance that we have brought it to this place as a private senator's bill. To address violence against and abuse and neglect of disabled persons in this country, this bill is considered necessary by the very people for whom the royal commission is being held. I commend the bill to the Senate.

Scott Ryan (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question is that the bill be read a second time.