Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Manufacturing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Labor have some 10 amendments to this bill. We had sought to move them together, but I understand from negotiations that we need to split them up. The reason Labor will be moving these amendments today is that the scheme as it currently stands does not deliver on the promise for redress made by this parliament—redress that's timely, redress that does not retraumatise and redress that does not leave survivors missing out.

The reality of this scheme as rolled out by the government does not reflect the will of this parliament. It falls short of the original recommendations of the royal commission. Our amendments seek to address major structural shortcomings of the scheme. We seek to bring the scheme back in line with the original intention and motivation of the royal commission, to end the delays caused by institutions not doing the right thing by not joining the scheme and to ensure no-one misses out through strengthening funders-of-last-resort provisions and the introduction of an advanced payment scheme. We seek to do this by delivering full redress for survivors by lifting the cap on payments as prescribed by the royal commission; making sure that prior payments are not indexed to take away from a redress payment, including from members of the stolen generations who were paid redress for the fact they were removed as children, not necessarily for the sexual abuse that they suffered at the hands of the perpetrators in the institutions that they were stolen away to; making sure that a request for a review of redress and the review of that offer cannot result in that offer being reduced; scrapping the existing and arbitrary assessment matrix and delivering on one that is fair and properly recognises the full impact of abuse; and ensuring ongoing psychological and other forms of cultural support for survivors throughout their lives. After so long, it is time for this parliament to again reflect on the promise that it made to deliver redress to survivors of childhood sexual abuse within Australian institutions.

We have an opportunity tonight in this chamber to improve this scheme, and this parliament should deliver on that. We are a quarter way through the 10-year life of this scheme, and still the number of redress payments are tracking well below what was expected. Do you know what this means? This means that there are institutions out there that know. They've got records; they've heard of how many victims inside those institutions have experienced abuse. And even though those institutions have signed up and are ready to make those payments under this scheme, still there is enough deterrent to people to not do the paperwork and sign up. Our amendments today are designed to help clear that path, to make the application and pursuit of redress that much easier for victims and survivors. It's a clear warning sign, the low take-up rate and the low number of payments, and we have a responsibility today to do something about that. I would like to ask the minister this evening: are you aware that many of the concerns that survivors have raised with the matrix and its potential use were, indeed, identified before this scheme was even implemented and in the early debates we had about this legislation?

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Families and Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In a broad response to the contribution just made by Senator Pratt, I would say a couple of things. First and foremost, there seems to be a lack of understanding by those opposite about how this scheme was actually designed to operate. It's designed to operate in such a way that all of the states and territories have a level of responsibility and commitment towards this scheme. A board has been established in conjunction with the Commonwealth government that requires the unanimous agreement for any changes to the scheme to actually be negotiated.

Secondly, what the contribution just given to us failed to recognise is the fact that, as part of the establishment of the scheme in the first place, we would undertake a statutory two-year review by an independent assessor. That person appointed is Robyn Kruk AO. Robyn was the person who undertook the review of the redress scheme that was established inside the military, or the defence forces, and she is due to report on that review in a couple of weeks time. Her review has sought advice from a number of different sources, but, most particularly, her review has been informed by interviews with survivors and in consultation with survivors. What the government wishes to do as part of the process of this review is wait to find out what the reviewer recommends so that we are able to provide a formal, independent review that has actually taken into account the voice of survivors.

In principle, there is nothing to say that many of the amendments that have been put forward by the opposition today don't have very good merit to them and, in principle, the government are certainly not arguing against them. But what we are saying is: 'You know the process; you understand the review's in place.' I have had significant and detailed conversations with the shadow minister in the other place and it was tremendously disappointing to see those opposite are still intending to move these amendments and, in doing so, seek to supersede or pre-empt the response from our independent reviewer, who has been informed by survivors. The government will not be supporting any of the amendments that have been put forward by the opposition, because we actually believe there is an appropriate process to go through to enable us to have a firm and solid independent benchmark against which we can make continuous improvement.

Senator Pratt, we on this side do not shy away from the fact that this scheme has not been perfect, but we do wish to work together in a multipartisan way to make sure this scheme is the best it can be. Coming in here two weeks before the independent reviewer is due to table her report, which I have agreed to make public, suggests to me that you're not perhaps as genuine as you might be suggesting you are.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Manufacturing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

How quickly will the government put forward amendments to this legislation on the basis of the findings of the review? You said that you expect many of the issues we raised to be canvassed. How quickly will you make a decision to amend the very same act that we are debating amending today?

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Families and Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Clearly, the bill that we're debating today has absolutely no relevance whatsoever. This is actually a technical bill that seeks to make—

An opposition senator interjecting—

Indeed, but I just wanted to make it very clear that these are technical amendments to support the act to make sure that it is functioning in a way that is more effective, so this bill has got nothing to do with the matters that are before the chair in relation to the amendments.

As I said in my previous contribution, we have a redress board. The redress board is made up of me, as the representative of the Commonwealth government, and also all of the other ministers in the states and territories who have responsibility in their respective jurisdictions for the Redress Scheme. On the process that would happen after we receive the review, clearly we would have the opportunity to have a look at the recommendations of the review and then we would seek to go back, because, as I said, we require a consensus amongst all of the ministers that sit on that redress board.

I want to reiterate that this government absolutely is committed to a program of continuous improvement in the Redress Scheme. We know that, when we started off with this scheme, it certainly did not start off as well as we would have liked it to. The complexity of the applications that we received from survivors was much greater than we ever imagined. But we don't shy away from the fact that we are absolutely committed to continuous improvement. We will give an absolute commitment to say that we will work with the state and territory ministers, informed by the review and informed by the advice that we've received from survivors, to make sure that we continue to provide the redress in the most timely way we can for survivors who have come forward.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Manufacturing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, will you commit now to implementing all of the recommendations of the review? I know it's an independent review, so I'm assuming that the recommendations will be public quite soon and that you may even have some idea of what some of them may be. I want to ask you if you will implement all of the recommendations.

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Families and Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I said in my previous answer to your previous question, I am but one of a number of ministers that sit on the national redress board. I need to be able to consult and negotiate with those other ministers in relation to any changes that might be made to the act. Equally, I do not know what is in the review. To come in here and speculate on this technical amendment bill about something that I haven't even seen would be inappropriate.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Manufacturing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

If the redress board do not agree to a much-needed change, will you call them out publicly? Will you act unilaterally to make some improvements? How will you work to address the issues raised by survivors? What happens if this board rejects the findings of the review? Are you going to hide behind that board in order to get out of acting on behalf of survivors?

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Families and Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I can assure you that I have no intention of getting out of acting on behalf of survivors and I find the comment actually quite offensive. I'm not going to come in here and speculate on hypotheticals, but I will reiterate my commitment and the commitment of this government to making sure this scheme is the best it possibly can be to support survivors.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Manufacturing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Given the process you've outlined, Minister, that we're waiting for the recommendations that come out of the review—you said that's due in a couple of weeks, I believe. You say, 'Yes, it's coming soon, so why are you pursuing these amendments now?', and yet then you go on to say, 'Well, any changes still have to go to the redress board in order to make any changes to this act.' Minister, I want to ask you: given the issues with the matrix, given the indexing of payments, given the problem of the number of redress payments tracking below what was expected, given the delays caused by institutions not joining the scheme, given the issues around strengthening funders of last resort to ensure that everyone has access—but, in particular, the issue of things like indexing and the matrix—what is your advice to survivors today? If they are concerned about the current management of the Redress Scheme and the current provisions of the act, should they wait to put their applications in? Will they be judged according to the old matrix or the new one? Will they be invited to resubmit their applications? Noting that this review is coming, you must have some idea of the kinds of issues that you are going to need to take to this board, rather than just saying, 'Wait and see.' You have to be able to actively manage, right here and now, the expectations of survivors; otherwise they might be thinking, 'Well, I'm going to have to wait two more years to put my application for redress in.' Yet they may well find that nothing changes. What is your advice to survivors today, Minister?

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Families and Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I've said before, the independent two-year review that's being undertaken by Robyn Kruk AO has sought to draw on the advice and experience of survivors in relation to this scheme. Her review will be informed by that advice. The amendments before us today have not been informed by a formal process of consultation with survivors, and I believe the most responsible thing that I as the minister can do, that this government can do and that the governments of states and territories can do is wait and have the independent review informed by survivors before we make decisions about any changes going forward.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Manufacturing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, I ask you to reflect more specifically on the amendments we have moved today, which, indeed, allow you as minister to respond with flexibility and latitude to those recommendations. If you would like me to do so, I would be happy to go through some of the specifics of those now. If you look at the form of the amendments that we seek to move from (3) onwards, the issues that are going to come up in the review are very closely matched to the issues that we raise in these amendments and, again, would enable you in large part—and we can wait to be corrected because you are going to have to legislate to make these changes at some point in the future anyway—to move much more quickly in response to that review in a couple of weeks time. It would enable you to take the findings of the review and use the amendments made in this place to respond flexibly and take new arrangements to the board. So, Minister, I again ask you to reflect on the need to urgently pass these amendments today, rather than waiting, as you have suggested, until the outcome of the review.

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Families and Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The contribution that we've just received from Senator Pratt assumes that the amendments that have been put forward will be the recommendations of the review. We do not have the review, so we are pre-empting an independent review, so I don't accept the premise of your comment.

Rex Patrick (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

With your indulgence, Chair, I'm not quite sure of the status of where we're up to. I heard Senator Pratt say that you will move amendments separately. I'm not sure whether you've actually moved any amendments at this point. The answer to that is no? I know that Senator Siewert has some more general questions. Perhaps you could assist—

Alex Gallacher (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Patrick, no amendments have been moved.

Rex Patrick (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Okay. I would ask for assistance—perhaps Senator Pratt could tell, because the running sheet basically says everything's being moved together—just to understand how they're going to be broken up. And I do have some general questions, as I know Senator Siewert does.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Manufacturing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There are 10 amendments, and they're numbered specifically. Because in our discussions with the crossbench we are not as yet clear on which amendments are being supported by which senators, it's incumbent upon us, therefore, to move one to 10 separately, but the revised sheet does specifically number them separately.

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

I have some questions for the minister about the bill and a couple of things more generally as they apply to the scheme. As I indicated in my second contribution, can I ask: if survivors will no longer be provided with the full list of associate institutions under these amendments, what are you going to do to ensure survivors can access this information in alternative ways? As I made the comment in my second reading amendment, they have a right to know who they are signing the fact they won't undertake any civil litigation away to.

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Families and Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In response to Senator Siewert's question, all of the institutions that sit underneath the application will be available online, so the survivors can actually have a look at all of the institutions. The purpose of this measure, I suppose, is to not put a huge list of institutions to a survivor, but they will be able to get access to the actual institutions. The changes have been sought to be put in place because we've been advised of the fact that this is a more trauma-informed way of being able to provide the information to survivors.

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

I take your point, but will the specific link be provided to survivors so if they choose to they can then access that list?

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Families and Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm advised that that will be possible, subject, obviously, to this bill being passed.

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

I presume, therefore, that the information which is provided to survivors when they're making an application et cetera will be changed in order to inform them of the reasons why the list isn't being provided and that they can access it. In other words, they know to go and look for it if they want to.

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Families and Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Siewert, I'm advised that that will be able to be facilitated for the survivor if that is their wish.

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

The issue here is they may not know to go and look for it unless they're specifically told. I take the point about not giving them the whole list and that it should be up to the survivor, but sometimes you don't know what you don't know to ask for unless you are told that you can access it if you want to.

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Families and Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm advised that in the response letter to the applicant they will identify the specific institutions in that instead of, as we currently do, just putting in a great big, long list. It will be more specific so that the survivor doesn't have to trawl all the way through a million organisations to find the one that has perpetrated the action.

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

Just so I've dotted the i's and crossed the t's, I presume that if somebody is not using the online system there'll be an alternative way to be able to access that information?

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Families and Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It will also be provided to them in written form by way of a letter.

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

The bill clarifies, as we've articulated during the debate, that one or more participating government institutions can become funders of last resort. What guarantees are there that no survivors are going to have to wait even longer and experience further delays as a result of these changes? It's already a lengthy process when you've got one funder of last resort.

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Families and Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The purpose of this amendment is to expedite the process and make it faster. I'm more than happy to keep you briefed and up to date as these amendments roll out to demonstrate why we're putting them in place. But it is our belief, from the advice that we've received, that these changes will actually make it faster, not more complicated.

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

Could you briefly outline why you think it's going to be quicker to do it this way? Will you be looking specifically at the time line for applications relating to defunct institutions? Will there be a process to make sure that you're tracking it really carefully?

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Families and Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

When the royal commission undertook its investigation, it didn't actually anticipate this being an issue. For that reason, there was no provision in the primary legislation for the funder of last resort to actually be shared between various jurisdictions. This legislation seeks to make sure that you can have more than one funder of last resort so that the defunct institutions' share of the liability or the redress cost is divided equally between the two government institutions. At the moment, it doesn't actually work like that. It just puts clarity back into it and gives us a quick and easy mechanism, contained within the actual act, to be able to do it. At the moment, there's silence in the act in relation to being able to split the funding liability of a defunct institution.

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

I just want to comment that I don't think this is the end of dealing with the funder of last resort. I think you will acknowledge that further reforms needed to that process. I'll go to Fairbridge Restored and the Prince's Trust. I want to ask for an update. You'll be aware that this is close to a lot of people's hearts, particularly Western Australians. This is a very tricky issue; I will freely and frankly acknowledge that. Could you please provide the Senate with an update on the ongoing negotiations and consideration of this issue, given that, unless something is done, Fairbridge Restored will soon, by the very nature of the UK legislation, cease to exist, as I understand it, unless there's been some progress?

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Families and Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Senator Siewert. I know that this has been a particular issue for the Western Australian senators in this place and others in this parliament, not least due to the sizable number of people involved with Fairbridge. As a result of Fairbridge Restored's refusal to join the scheme, we named and shamed them on 1 July last year. We are continuing to consider and work through the particular options for how we can ensure that we get the redress that the survivors of that particular institution deserve. At the moment, we are in negotiations. We have engaged with the Department of Home Affairs and the Australian Government Solicitor in relation to the unique situation in terms of the relationship between Fairbridge Restored and the Prince's Trust. Due to the stage of those negotiations, I can't really give you a lot more information. We need to move to the settlement, and we would not seek to prejudice the outcome of those negotiations by any commentary here. We will continue to advance the work to make sure that we resolve this issue. We are confident that we will be able to find a solution that can be progressed to ensure that survivors of that particular institution can get the redress that they deserve. I regret that I can't give you any more detail than that.

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

I do appreciate the sensitivity of these particular discussions. Is there a time line that you can share with the chamber? A number of us have been pursuing this for quite some time and are concerned about the slowness. I'm not casting aspersions. I get it that these things take time. Also, a group of survivors are very keen to find out what's going on. Could you give us a sense of a time line for a start, please?

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Families and Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I can't give you a time line, but, in terms of the priorities of this scheme and issues before us at the moment, no priority could be higher than resolving this particular issue—not to suggest for a minute that every survivor is a priority of the scheme but on the basis of the comments that you've just articulated. We're placing very high priority on resolving this particular matter as soon as we possibly can.

Rex Patrick (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, I want to get a feel for the time line in respect of the review. I say this having just over the last couple of days got a return on an FOI about the National Archives review. I note it was commenced in April 2019, it was provided to the minister in February 2020 and it's still not public. I listened to what you said. You suggest that these amendments might be premature, but I will of course give much stronger consideration to supporting Labor's amendments or at least some of the amendments if indeed any legislation that's likely to remedy or deal with some of these issues is in fact two years away. I'm just trying to get a feel. You're going to get the review at some stage in the next couple of weeks. I wonder how long you're anticipating considering the review. If you could give a time line—best endeavours. I want to get a feel for that please, Minister.

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Families and Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Patrick, you weren't in the chamber when I gave a bit of a time line to Senator Pratt a minute ago. This is the process that will occur. The report will be provided to the government sometime in the next few weeks—hopefully, by the end of this month. The report will then be provided to the other members of the redress board—the ministers in the states and territories who have responsibility for redress in their particular jurisdiction. Then we will seek to meet straight afterwards. We're meeting in April, so the state and territory ministers will have a month to consider the recommendations in the review. We will meet in April. At that meeting we will consider those recommendations and seek for decisions to be made as to whether there is unanimous support to implement those recommendations.

The thing that has failed to be realised in this place is that the federal government does not have the capacity to act unilaterally and make changes. Because of the way the redress act is written and the way the board is established, we require the support of the states and territories. This is a partnership agreement. That's the way it has been set up. Obviously much of the responsibility exists within those state and territory jurisdictions. I can certainly give you a commitment that the Commonwealth seek to move as quickly as we possibly can, but I can't pre-empt, firstly, what the report is going to say, which is what these amendments seek to do, and, secondly, I can't pre-empt what agreement I'll be able to reach around the redress board table. But I can give you an absolute commitment that the review will be provided to the states and territories immediately after the Commonwealth government receives it. I can give you a commitment that I will be meeting with the redress board in April, at which time we will consider those recommendations. I can also give you a commitment that, as soon as the board has agreed to it, I will be releasing the report so that it is available for public review.

Rex Patrick (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have a couple of follow-up questions on what you just said, Minister—and I thank you for that. Based on what you've just said about a partnership agreement, I'm wondering if the amendments that are being moved by Labor will put that agreement into a breach situation. I'd like to just get an understanding of that, as a first question.

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Families and Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Certainly, it is in breach of the intent of the legislation. As I said, the federal government cannot unilaterally make a decision on behalf of the redress board, which is what these amendments seek to do. What I would seek to do, with any changes to the redress act that are recommended by the review, is take them to the redress board for approval, because there may be situations where they have to also undertake legislative amendment within their own jurisdictions, and get their agreement so that when I come back to this place—and I give you an undertaking that we will move as quickly as we possibly can—I know I'll be coming back with the full support and agreement of the other members of the redress board.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Manufacturing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Minister, you currently have the power to do things on behalf of the Commonwealth, like top up payments or respond to some of the issues that we all know are already being publicly canvassed. Do you acknowledge that you have the power to do that?

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Families and Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is a cooperative scheme. We went into this with the states and territories in good faith that we would operate together. I am actually getting a tiny bit distressed that, despite my responses to many similar questions, you seem to refuse to accept what I'm saying.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Manufacturing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm well aware of that, coming from the state of Western Australia. The state had some difficulty in signing up because of the complexities in negotiating agreement with the Commonwealth around some of those issues, so you certainly don't have to underscore that for me. Minister, will you ensure that the report of the review is responded to by the government and the committee within 90 days?

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Families and Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In responding to the questions Senator Patrick asked, I outlined the process. We will receive the report, I would imagine, within the next couple of weeks—hopefully, by the end of February. We have a redress board meeting that has already been scheduled for April to give the other members the opportunity to consider the report, and at that redress meeting the matters that are contained in the report will be considered. So that is the process that has already been put in place. And, as I said, I will also make the report available publicly.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Manufacturing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I refer to our amendment (3) on sheet 1196 revised. I'm happy to move it now, or I can move them in order. But, specific to this amendment, Minister, do you agree that the cap remaining at $150,000—restricting redress to that—does not provide adequate redress to some victims and that this is an issue that will need to be actively considered in the review?

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Families and Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Pratt, it is not for me to unilaterally make a decision. These matters are all before the review.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Manufacturing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

But it's not for you to make a decision, it's for the parliament.

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Families and Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, that is where you're absolutely wrong, Senator Pratt. It's not a decision of this parliament. It is a decision of the parliaments of the states and territories across Australia. There is an agreed process. It was agreed in this place when the scheme was stood up. I understand that everybody in this place agreed to the establishment of the scheme in its current format. As part of that process, we undertook to have a two-year review because we believed in setting up a scheme of this magnitude. This is a very complex scheme and it has proved to be very difficult. We are not shying away from the fact that it has been a very difficult scheme. But we are absolutely committed to its continuous improvement, and part of that is making sure that we allow the independent review to be undertaken and to provide that advice back to us.

I think really all we're seeking to do here today is to pre-empt by a couple of months the determinations of a group of people. That group has been established under the act with responsibility for delivering this particular scheme. Every single amendment, with the exception of the one about naming and shaming, has exactly the same answer, and that is that they are all matters that are likely to have been canvassed in the review. I will not pre-empt the views of survivors that are contained in that review for the political purposes of this chamber.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Manufacturing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I turn to the third amendment in the 10 that we are moving. What we have outlined here is to call on the minister to consider the action that needs to be taken to increase the cap from $150,000 to $200,000 and, within 90 days of the commencement of this section, report on what the minister has done or plans to do to have the cap increased and, if the minister has not done and does not plan to do anything, the minister's reasons for this. You can do all of those things in a manner that is consistent with the review, except if the review were to say, 'Well, I guess we don't want to recognise the rest of the public debate that clearly argues that the cap is too low, that $150,000 is an inadequate cap and that it needs to be increased to $200,000.'

I do not understand why, when you're heading into negotiations with the states, you would not want to be armed with the demonstrable will of the Senate and, indeed, the parliament to show that there is a clear position that the cap should be increased. It doesn't restrain you in any way, other than committing you to working through a process on what actions you will undertake to increase the cap.

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Families and Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What I have committed to do is what the act has asked me to commit to do, and that is to undertake an independent review that is clearly informed by an independent structured process to get the views of survivors to make sure that anything that goes before the redress board is fully informed by an independent assessment that takes into account the full views of survivors who have been a significant part consultative process. Nothing changes from that. I've given an absolute commitment to this place, and I'll continue to give a commitment to this place, to work through the appropriate processes to make sure that I am listening to the voices of survivors through the most appropriate means, and that is the independent review, not a political discourse.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Manufacturing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I foreshadow that I will move our amendment (1) on sheet 1196. This amendment asks that a review cannot result in a reduced payment. I'm sure these issues will come up in the review that you are referring to. It is a commonsense safeguard. It is a safeguard that could be enacted and considered by the parliament now so that this government and the parliament can make progress on these issues. It's such a simple amendment, but it would mean so much to those in the scheme. As we know, people are not asking for a review of their payments, because they fear that the amount being offered will be reduced. It's connected with the complexities in the matrix and the application, in that there are a whole range of reasons that the sum offered to them is not in any way reflecting what they think it should be and what any other assessment, if you actually were to go through the particulars of their case, would show adequate redress to be.

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Families and Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The government will be opposing this amendment. I'd like to inform the chamber that I had very detailed discussions with shadow minister Burney in the other place. It was a matter she raised to me when she came to speak to me about this particular bill. I give an undertaking to the shadow minister that I would investigate any specific situation that the shadow minister was aware of where somebody had sought a review and the review had come back and indicated they had a decrease in payment. I'm still waiting for Ms Burney to come back to me. In any situation in this place, if there has been a detrimental outcome or an outcome that has been delivered through my department that has caused concern to somebody's constituent, my door remains open. As I said, I have never received any advice from Ms Burney about any instance where this has happened, despite the fact it has been spoken about. I have asked as part of the review process that this issue be considered. I am happy to have a look at any situation. If Senator Pratt has a particular case she would like me to undertake an investigation on, I'm more than happy to do so. But do not come in here and talk about hypotheticals when I am unaware whether you're aware of anybody who has received a review that has resulted in a decreased payment being undertaken. My understanding of the situation as it currently exists is if an error has been made by my department in an assessment resulting in the review, showing that—

Senator Pratt interjecting—

I'm telling you that now, Senator Pratt. In any circumstance where the review has resulted in a mistake by the independent assessor or by my department where a lower amount has been recommended underneath the review, the payment has not been reduced.

The CHAIR: Senator Pratt, can I just clarify, did you wish to formally move amendment (1) or are you wishing to move your amendments together?

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Manufacturing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do want to move them separately. However, it would make sense, so we're not calling everyone down to the chamber after individual debates, for me to outline all of the amendments so that we can then put the questions one after the other, if that seems to make sense to others.

Amendment (1) is so that a review should not result in a reduced payment. Our second amendment was to hold the government to account on its naming and shaming of non-participating institutions, so amendment (2) amends schedule 1, page 15, and inserts a section that legislates that the government must name an institution if, after the first six months where an application has been made, that it continues not to want to participate. It introduces a requirement that the minister names any institution that refuses to join the Redress Scheme within six months.

I acknowledge the government's policy. I acknowledge that that policy was put in place after significant pressure from survivors, and Labor brought voice to that within the parliament. But this naming and shaming is not guaranteed. It requires proactive management by the government. I've no doubt you'll do the right thing, but this is also parliament wanting to express its will about this policy and that this policy should be legislated. If your undertaking as a minister is entirely consistent with ours as a parliament that sees this as important, as you say, then we've got a moral duty in this place to vote this amendment up. Participating in redress is a part of any institution's social licence, and we in this parliament have an expectation that a failure to participate should have the full glare of the Australian community.

The further amendments are, as I outlined, deliberately structured to give the government flexibility and latitude—flexibility to negotiate with the states and territories to make the changes needed by the scheme. They foreshadow very much a commitment to not only the outcomes of the review but the issues that have been identified in public debate, in parliamentary committees and by senators in this place. We don't need to wait for the review to know how substantial these issues are.

We need a clear commitment from the government to bring the scheme back to what the royal commission intended. We need leadership, not, 'We're just going to wait for the review.' We need leadership, because we know that that's what survivors of abuse have been saying. They require the minister to report to parliament on what steps will be taken to achieve these changes within 90 days. There's no reason for the government and the minister not to accept this responsibility and this level of scrutiny. Indeed, it is our right to scrutinise these movements, not just that of the committee that's made up by the states. These issues include increasing the cap on redress payments, as we've already outlined in debate, with flexibility. One of our amendments calls on you to outline your actions on increasing the cap. That report should be tabled.

On ending the indexing of relevant prior payments, what the minister has done, or plans to do, to have indexing ended, as mentioned in the subsection, must be reported. If the minister has not done, and does not plan to do, anything, the minister must give reasons for this. We've seen the legacy of the impact of prior payments being indexed, and it's heartbreaking to hear the stories of people who go through the onerous process of retelling the story of their abuse to then barely getting any redress once a tiny payment from years ago is indexed. People feel insulted and disrespected when this happens. It's incredibly difficult for people to dredge this up, and they should feel they are being left empty-handed after this process.

On deducting prior payments—and this is in amendment (5) of sheet 1196—we need safeguards to ensure that the prior payments deducted from redress are relevant prior payments. Again, I'm sure this issue will come up in the review.

Then we've got schedule 1, item 51 at amendment (6)—advance payment schemes for elderly and ill applicants. We know that too many ill and elderly people who have done applications have already died. It's a scheme already working well in Scotland. There's no reason that you should not accept the will of the Senate today on behalf of survivors of abuse to support this amendment. It would not cost more. It would just give people recognition and peace of mind at the end of their lives.

Finally, amendment (7) is in relation to the funder of last resort. This amendment makes sure that no-one misses out on redress. If an organisation has folded and no longer has any links to a continuing organisation or if an organisation genuinely does not have the resources to participate in the scheme, the government should make sure redress is paid. This, of course, leaves it open for the government to continue to pursue avenues of seeking those moneys from other institutions. But you can't put people—victims of places like Fairbridge—through the prospect of seeking redress and then tell them there's nothing on the table.

Amendment (8) deals with psychological counselling and support. As Senator Smith already highlighted in the earlier debates today, we need to make sure that ongoing counselling and support is provided but also that it's culturally appropriate. The money, as the act is currently structured, is paid in a lump sum and it's supposed to be enough for a lifetime. People can be left with as little as $1,250 for their lifelong counselling and support needs. So, again, this amendment calls on you to report on what the minister has done and plans to do to ensure that those resources are flexible and available to people over their lifetime.

Amendment (9) deals with better recognising the impact of sexual abuse. This is very significant, and I would hope that the report of the review picks this up. Indeed, the government should—and has the capacity to—respond to that issue now. One of the reasons I think that some survivors are unhappy with the offers that are being put to them is actually about the cruel and arbitrary nature of the matrix. I recall that when these issues were discussed in the Senate in the past, including in hearings about the legislation and the nature of the matrix, we couldn't get details from the bureaucrats at the table in relation to how the matrix would work. It seemed that there was a concern that the matrix would somehow be gamed. I know that, when people apply and go to fill out the matrix, the notes and introductory statements ask people to be explicit as to the nature of their abuse. However, the evidence that we have heard before the joint committee, and I'm sure it's been an issue before other committees, is that survivors of abuse do find it very difficult to be completely forthcoming about that, and they believe that those assessing these should be able to read between the lines. I foreshadow that I will be moving opposition amendment (1) on sheet 1196. (Time expired)

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Families and Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Pratt, I think that, in moving this amendment in relation to the naming and shaming, you have misrepresented what we already do and how the scheme operates in relation to the naming and shaming of institutions that fail to join the scheme within the timeframe that has been allocated to them. I think you fail to understand that, in many instances, these are incredibly sensitive situations and every application that we receive is different in some way, so the scheme needs to retain the flexibility to make sure that we are acting in the best interests of the survivor and providing the information to the survivor. When you end up with some extraordinarily complex applications—some of them are terribly heartbreaking to read—that have named many, many institutions, the process whereby we make sure that we get all the institutions to join is extremely complex. What we have sought to do is to make a commitment to this place through the redress board—sanctioned by the redress board—to name and shame organisations that have not joined up within six months of being notified that they have been named in an application. We made the same provisions for those organisations that were named in the royal commission. We have clearly honoured that commitment. On 1 July we named and shamed six institutions. It was pleasing to find that two of those joined the scheme subsequently. On 1 January this year we didn't have to name any institutions, because all institutions that had exceeded the time period we put in place had joined the scheme. That enabled us to progress the applications of survivors against those institutions.

We made a further commitment, which was approved through the redress board, that, from the federal government's perspective, no further grants could be accessed by an institution that failed in its moral obligation to join the scheme. That is already in place. I'm pleased to be able to advise this chamber that the state and territory governments have also instigated proceedings to make sure that no institution that is named is able to access grants from their respective jurisdictions either.

The final thing that we announced and did as part of our name-and-shame exercise—and, as I said, pleasingly we didn't have to name and shame any further institutions on 1 January this year—was that, through the process of the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission, we would be revoking charitable status for any organisation that did not join the scheme. This will have a significant impact on any organisation that has been named by the scheme and doesn't do the right thing. Their charitable status will be revoked.

We have been absolutely committed and we have done everything that we said we would do. We have committed into the future, through changes to the act, that we will continue to name organisations. We got the policy through the redress board to say that any institution would have six months to join from the time that they were advised they'd been named by an application.

I would also like to take this opportunity to commend the many organisations that have not had an application named against them but have joined the scheme. These are organisations that have a history of working with children and have taken their responsibility of working with children going forward to such a degree that they have joined the scheme without an application against them. That means that if in the future we receive an application against that institution we won't have to wait to go through the six-month process for them to join, because they'll have already joined.

The federal government, in conjunction with the state governments through the redress board and in the actions that have been taken, have demonstrated our absolute commitment to making sure we name and shame organisations that do not join up to the scheme, as well as taking further sanctions and actions against those organisations to penalise them in a monetary way. We seek to maintain a level of maximum flexibility, understanding the sensitivity of the scheme, so that the government, as the scheme operator with the states and territories, can make sure we're doing the best we possibly can to have a trauma-informed response to survivors, so we can get them their redress in the least traumatic and fastest possible way.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Manufacturing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you for taking to your feet so I can finish outlining our amendments. I do note you responded to amendment (2), but, for your clarification, the first question before the chair will be amendment (1), which is about the review.

Amendment (9) requires that the impact of abuse be better recognised. In the committees I've participated in, survivors have told us about the arbitrary nature of the matrix, which links payments to the nature of the abuse; for example, was it physical, was it penetrative, was it exposure, was it contact, was it penetrative rape, was it fingers—what was the nature of the penetration and what sex organs were involved?

It has actually been very hard for some survivors of abuse to be so explicit. In some cases, while they've outlined the very traumatic impact that the abuse has had on them, they haven't been able to bring themselves to be as explicit as they need to be in their documentation. Others have outlined the nature of their abuse but the matrix has discounted it because it rates payments on the basis of the nature of the act that took place, rather than on the impact of that abuse. This amendment calls on the government to report again on these issues so that payments for abuse are calculated independently, as recommended by the royal commission.

Amendment (10) requires non-participating organisations to participate. It makes sure that, if an organisation refuses to participate in the scheme or deliberately restructures its assets so as to appear that it can't participate, the government will be able to get funds from it in order to pay redress. This could take the form of a levy or collection through the tax system. As we know, there are constitutional limits on seizing assets; however, it is indeed unacceptable for organisations to simply refuse to participate or to hide their assets. They need to be compelled to do so. It needs to be legislated that they pay redress to those they have hurt.

So I've ripped through our 10 amendments, and I now seek to move our amendment (1). This amendment means that, if a person seeks a review of their offer, the offer cannot be reduced. This will give people more confidence to seek a review. I move opposition amendment (1) on sheet 1196 revised:

(1) Schedule 1, page 14 (after line 12), after Part 5, insert:

Part 5A—Reviewing the original determination

National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Act 2018

46A At the end of section 75

Add:

(4) When reviewing the original determination, the person may not vary the original determination or set aside the original determination and substitute a new determination in a way that would result in the amount of the redress payment or the amount of the counselling and psychological component of redress being less than the amount determined in the original determination.

Rex Patrick (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In noting amendment (1), I want to ask a question of the minister. Minister, I think you said, in one of your earlier statements, that this is a matter that will be considered by the review. I'll probably ask the same question with regard to each of the amendments as they're moved. Is it your understanding that the review is looking into this particular aspect of the scheme? In the event that the review doesn't cover off on this particular issue, are you open to considering it—in the event that the report that's provided to you is silent on this?

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Families and Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I can confirm that all of the issues that have been traversed in the amendments that have been put forward by the opposition are matters that are currently being considered by the review, so the matter of the amendment that is currently before the chair, amendment (1), is being considered as part of the review.

Rex Patrick (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you. That will truncate the remainder of my questions. I guess the second part of my question is redundant, in that you say all of these issues will be traversed. That takes me to amendment (3), if I may, in relation to the cap. It's my understanding that the royal commission recommended a minimum of $10,000 in a payment and a maximum of $200,000, as is proposed to be considered here, and that, indeed, $65,000 was considered to be the average payment. So that amendment is of particular interest to me because the royal commission made a specific recommendation in respect of this.

Anne Ruston (SA, Liberal Party, Minister for Families and Social Services) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Patrick, you are correct in relation to the recommendations of the royal commission. However, in order for us to be able to get the unanimous agreement that we required with the redress board—the state and territory ministers and the governance board—it was the view of that board that the maximum payment be $150,000. We have sought for the reviewer to undertake an assessment as to that particular number. You're also quite correct that the royal commission suggested that the average payment would be $65,000. It actually has proved to be higher than that. The average payment was $83,400, so certainly we are seeing payments higher than the royal commission anticipated. But it was by virtue of the fact that we required the unanimous agreement of the states and territories, who are represented on the governance board, that the decision of the scheme, when it was set up, was $150,000. But, as I said, it is a matter being considered by the review.

Rex Patrick (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Just for the benefit of the chamber, and perhaps Labor, in terms of moving amendments, on the basis of the minister's answers I won't be supporting the amendments, but I will support amendment (3) on the basis that it was a recommendation of the royal commission. That may assist you in terms of calling divisions.

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

I'd just like to clarify the Greens' position on these matters. The Greens will be supporting these amendments because we think that these issues have been well traversed and it's time that we did see some movement on them.

In terms of amendment (1), which is, as I understand it, the amendment that Senator Pratt has just moved, I did listen to the minister's answer to the question on this and the fact that you asked for examples. The fact here is that the very existence of this particular process, where somebody thinks that they could have their payment reduced, actually puts people off seeking a review. That's why we think this is so important; it's so that people aren't put off. People are traumatised by the scheme. A lot of people, I will acknowledge, have had a good experience, but a lot of other people haven't, and they find the whole process retraumatising. We hear from people who say that they start to do the form and just doing the form retraumatises them because they rethink about it. They leave it for a while before they go back to it, before they complete the form. So I can totally see how people could be put off seeking a review having gone through the process and then thinking that their payment might be reduced.

So we think this is particularly important and we think these amendments—for example, increasing the cap from $150,000 to $200,000—are, as I said, way past time. The Greens made it plain at the time that we actually supported that—it should have been $200,000 all along. It's the same with the indexation of prior payments. Survivors have been complaining and deeply concerned about this since the very get-go. I do acknowledge that the government has done a lot of work to get institutions to sign up, but having this in legislation gives effect to that, to something the government has been doing now. This is the same with the other amendments, but I'll come back to those as Senator Pratt moves each one.

The CHAIR: The question is that amendment (1) on sheet 1196 revised, moved by Senator Pratt, be agreed to.

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

Prior to that vote, I articulated the Greens' position on some of the amendments. As I understand there are going to be some moved together, I'll take this opportunity to outline our support for those amendments and, briefly, the reasoning for that.

Amendment (5) will make sure that, if there's any doubt about whether a prior payment relates to sexual abuse, the scheme will err on the side of the applicant and not deduct the payment from redress. We will be supporting this particular amendment. We think that survivors shouldn't be worse off just because of the way prior payments are considered under the scheme.

In terms of the advance payment scheme, we think this is a particularly important amendment for elderly and ill applicants. As Senator Pratt articulated, other jurisdictions, like Scotland, have made advance payments available to applicants as part of their redress schemes. This is particularly important, as we know that some survivors are ageing and they are very vulnerable. We think this would go a long way to helping them and ensuring they at least see some form of justice.

In terms of amendment (7), this relates to the issues—

James McGrath (Queensland, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Excuse me, Senator Siewert. Senators, if you're going to have a conversation, could you please have it outside. The level of noise in this chamber is quite loud. Could everyone just be quiet—apart from you, Senator Siewert.

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

Thank you, Chair. I was finding it a little bit difficult to focus on the issues at hand with the noise level. Amendment (7) relates to the funder of last resort. As I've articulated before, the Greens are very focused on funders of last resort because we don't want to see people missing out because of the issues around the funders of last resort.

I'm going on to amendment (8) to quickly outline our support for it and our concerns about this particular issue of ongoing psychological support. I've been on, I think, all of the various committees looking at redress, both prior to looking at legislation and the legislation itself, and also on the current joint committee and the previous committee, and I have consistently heard evidence about people's concerns around ongoing psychological support. In particular, during the joint committee's hearing following the implementation of the scheme, there has consistently been deep, deep concern about the insufficiency of the funding and about the process for psychological and trauma-informed support. So we support that amendment.

Similarly, I remember standing in this chamber talking about the assessment framework, again from the get-go, and I do think this needs to be reformed, as in the group of amendments in amendment (9). Also, we support amendment (10). We're supportive of moves that constructively compel institutions to join the scheme.

I'm hoping that, by giving our feedback on each of these amendments now, that will assist the chamber and Senator Pratt to group the amendments, and that it will mean that I'm not bobbing up and down each time we're dealing with the separate amendments.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Manufacturing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move amendments (2) to (10) and I ask that the question be put separately on each of those amendments. We seek, in this chamber, to advance the interests of survivors. We know that these issues are before the review. There's nothing in these amendments that constrains the government, other than to be accountable to this chamber and, indeed, to survivors, in a positive direction for their interests. I commend the amendments to the Senate.

James McGrath (Queensland, Liberal National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Pratt, I might need you to move each amendment separately, unless you do want to group some of them together. I'm in the hands of the chamber here. If you want to do it numerically, from (2) through to (10), we can do that, but that will mean nine divisions.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Manufacturing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

We would be happy, with the chamber's indulgence—I think everyone knows their voting intention—to move them separately but have one-minute divisions, if that's appropriate.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: I think the first division might end up being a four-minute division, looking at the whips.

Of course. Naturally, that would be the case. Therefore, I move opposition amendment (2) on sheet 1196 revised:

(2) Schedule 1, page 15 (after line 13), after Part 6, insert:

Part 6A—Naming and shaming non-participating institutions

National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Act 2018

48A At the end of Division 3 of Part 5-1

Add:

116A Naming and shaming non-participating institutions

(1) This section applies to a non-government institution if:

(a) either:

  (i) an application made under section 19 identifies the institution as being involved in the abuse of a person; or

  (ii) information given in response to a request under section 24 or 25, in relation to an application made under section 19, identifies the institution as being involved in the abuse of a person; and

(b) the application has not been withdrawn under section 22; and

(c) the institution is not a participating non-government institution.

(2) If the institution refuses to participate in the scheme, the Minister must publish a notice stating that, despite the matters mentioned in paragraphs (1) (a) and (b), the institution refuses to participate in the scheme.

Institution has 6 months to become a participating institution after first application etc. that identifies institution

(3) The Minister must not publish a notice under subsection (2) in relation to the institution until the end of 6 months after the first time subparagraph (1) (a) (i) or (ii) applies in relation to the institution.

The CHAIR: The question is that amendment (2) on sheet 1196, moved by Senator Pratt, be agreed to.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Manufacturing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move opposition amendment (3) on sheet 1196 revised:

(3) Schedule 1, item 51, page 18 (after line 30), at the end of Part 8-2, add:

200 Increase in cap on redress payments

(1) As soon as practicable after this section commences, the Minister must consider the action that needs to be taken to increase the $150,000 cap on redress payments to $200,000.

(2) Within 90 days after this section commences, the Minister must prepare a report on:

  (a) what the Minister has done, or plans to do, to have the cap increased as mentioned in subsection (1); or

  (b) if the Minister has not done, and does not plan to do, anything—the Minister's reasons for this.

(3) The Minister must cause a copy of the report to be tabled in each House of the Parliament on or before the first sitting day of that House after the end of those 90 days.

(4) In this section:

   action includes amending this Act, an instrument made under this Act, or any other law.

This amendment is to increase the cap on redress payments from $150,000 to $200,000, as recommended by the royal commission:

The CHAIR: The question is that opposition amendment (3) on sheet 1196, moved by Senator Pratt, be agreed to.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Manufacturing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move opposition amendment (4) on sheet 1196 revised:

(4) Schedule 1, item 51, page 18 (after line 30), at the end of Part 8-2, add:

201 Ending indexing of relevant prior payments

(1) As soon as practicable after this section commences, the Minister must consider the action that needs to be taken to end the indexing of relevant prior payments.

(2) Within 90 days after this section commences, the Minister must prepare a report on:

  (a) what the Minister has done, or plans to do, to have indexing ended as mentioned in subsection (1); or

  (b) if the Minister has not done, and does not plan to do, anything—the Minister's reasons for this.

(3) The Minister must cause a copy of the report to be tabled in each House of the Parliament on or before the first sitting day of that House after the end of those 90 days.

(4) In this section:

   action includes amending this Act, an instrument made under this Act, or any other law.

This amendment will stop the indexation of prior payments. We know that many people have had a disappointing experience when they have been through the damaging process of applying, only to receive a tiny or non-existent settlement.

The CHAIR: The question is that opposition amendment (4) on sheet 1196, as moved by Senator Pratt, be agreed to.

The committee divided. [21:40]

(The Chair—Senator Lines)

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Manufacturing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I move opposition amendment (5) on sheet 1196:

(5) Schedule 1, item 51, page 18 (after line 30), at the end of Part 8-2, add:

202 Deducting prior payments—safeguards

(1) As soon as practicable after this section commences, the Minister must consider the action that needs to be taken to ensure that prior payments are deducted from redress payments only if, and only to the extent that, it is proven that the prior payments are relevant prior payments.

(2) Within 90 days after this section commences, the Minister must prepare a report on:

(a) what the Minister has done, or plans to do, to ensure the result mentioned in subsection (1); or

(b) if the Minister has not done, and does not plan to do, anything—the Minister's reasons for this.

(3) The Minister must cause a copy of the report to be tabled in each House of the Parliament on or before the first sitting day of that House after the end of those 90 days.

(4) In this section:

action includes amending this Act, an instrument made under this Act, or any other law.

[deducting prior payments—safeguards]

This amendment is to make sure that, if there's any doubt about whether a prior payment relates to sexual abuse, the scheme should err on the side of the applicant and not deduct payments from redress.

The CHAIR: The question is that opposition amendment (5) on sheet 1196, as moved by Senator Pratt, be agreed to.

The committee divided. [21:44]

(The Chair—Senator Lines)

Question negatived.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Manufacturing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—Unless any senator wants to change their vote from the vote on the last amendment, I now move opposition amendments (6), (7), (8), (9) and (10) on sheet 1196 together:

(6) Schedule 1, item 51, page 18 (after line 30), at the end of Part 8-2, add:

203 Advance payment scheme for elderly and ill applicants

(1) As soon as practicable after this section commences, the Minister must consider the action that needs to be taken so that, in appropriate circumstances, redress is payable to elderly or ill applicants in advance of their applications being approved.

(2) Within 90 days after this section commences, the Minister must prepare a report on:

(a) what the Minister has done, or plans to do, to have redress payable as mentioned in subsection (1); or

(b) if the Minister has not done, and does not plan to do, anything—the Minister's reasons for this.

(3) The Minister must cause a copy of the report to be tabled in each House of the Parliament on or before the first sitting day of that House after the end of those 90 days.

(4) In this section:

action includes amending this Act, an instrument made under this Act, or any other law.

[advance payment scheme for elderly and ill applicants]

(7) Schedule 1, item 51, page 18 (after line 30), at the end of Part 8-2, add:

204 Funders of last resort guarantee

(1) As soon as practicable after this section commences, the Minister must consider the action that needs to be taken to ensure that, for each non-government institution that:

(a) is responsible for the abuse of a person; and

(b) is not a participating institution; and

(c) either:

  (i) is a defunct institution; or

  (ii) because of the institution's financial situation, cannot participate in the scheme;

there is a government institution that is liable for what the non-government institution would have been liable to pay in relation to a person had the non-government institution been a participating institution.

(2) Within 90 days after this section commences, the Minister must prepare a report on:

(a) what the Minister has done, or plans to do, to ensure the result mentioned in subsection (1); or

(b) if the Minister has not done, and does not plan to do, anything—the Minister's reasons for this.

(3) The Minister must cause a copy of the report to be tabled in each House of the Parliament on or before the first sitting day of that House after the end of those 90 days.

(4) In this section:

action includes amending this Act, an instrument made under this Act, or any other law.

[funders of last resort guarantee]

(8) Schedule 1, item 51, page 18 (after line 30), at the end of Part 8-2, add:

205 Psychological counselling and support

(1) As soon as practicable after this section commences, the Minister must consider the action that needs to be taken to ensure that necessary ongoing psychological counselling and support is given to persons who are entitled to redress under the scheme.

(2) Within 90 days after this section commences, the Minister must prepare a report on:

(a) what the Minister has done, or plans to do, to have psychological counselling and support given as mentioned in subsection (1); or

(b) if the Minister has not done, and does not plan to do, anything—the Minister's reasons for this.

(3) The Minister must cause a copy of the report to be tabled in each House of the Parliament on or before the first sitting day of that House after the end of those 90 days.

(4) In this section:

action includes amending this Act, an instrument made under this Act, or any other law.

[psychological counselling and support]

(9) Schedule 1, item 51, page 18 (after line 30), at the end of Part 8-2, add:

206 Better recognising the impact of sexual abuse

(1) As soon as practicable after this section commences, the Minister must consider the action that needs to be taken to have the assessment framework better recognise the impact of sexual abuse.

(2) Within 90 days after this section commences, the Minister must prepare a report on:

(a) what the Minister has done, or plans to do, to have the assessment framework better recognise the impact of sexual abuse; or

(b) if the Minister has not done, and does not plan to do, anything—the Minister's reasons for this.

(3) The Minister must cause a copy of the report to be tabled in each House of the Parliament on or before the first sitting day of that House after the end of those 90 days.

(4) In this section:

action includes amending this Act, an instrument made under this Act, or any other law.

[better recognising the impact of sexual abuse]

(10) Schedule 1, item 51, page 18 (after line 30), at the end of Part 8-2, add:

207 Requiring non-participating institutions to contribute to scheme

(1) As soon as practicable after this section commences, the Minister must consider:

(a) the action that needs to be taken to ensure that:

  (i) redress is payable under the scheme even if the institutions responsible for the abuse are non-participating institutions; and

  (ii) non-participating institutions that refuse to participate in the scheme despite being capable of doing so are required to contribute to the scheme, in relation to abuse for which they are responsible, to the same extent as participating institutions; and

  (iii) in particular, attempts by non-participating institutions to evade their obligations in relation to abuse, such as by restructuring to shield assets, are not successful; and

(b) the action that needs to be taken to impose a levy on non-participating institutions that refuse to participate in the scheme despite being capable of doing so, in relation to abuse for which they are responsible, that is equal to the cost of the funding contribution that the non-participating institution would have been liable to pay had they been a participating institution.

(2) Within 90 days after this section commences, the Minister must prepare a report on:

(a) what the Minister has done, or plans to do, to ensure the result mentioned in paragraph (1) (a); and

(b) the feasibility of imposing the levy mentioned in paragraph (1) (b); and

(c) if the Minister has not done, and does not plan to do, anything mentioned in paragraphs (1) (a) and (1) (b)—the Minister's reasons for this.

(3) The Minister must cause a copy of the report to be tabled in each House of the Parliament on or before the first sitting day of that House after the end of those 90 days.

(4) In this section:

action includes amending this Act, an instrument made under this Act, or any other law.

[requiring non -participating institutions to contribute to scheme]

It's my understanding that the pattern of votes will remain the same, and so I move those amendments together.

The CHAIR: The question is that opposition amendments (6) to (10) on sheet 1196, as moved by Senator Pratt, be agreed to.

Question negatived.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendments; report adopted.