Amanda Rishworth (Kingston, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Social Services) Share this | Hansard source

I'd like to thank everyone who has contributed to this debate. I appreciate everyone's contributions. The National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Amendment Bill 2023 will amend the primary legislation for the National Redress Scheme for institutional child sexual abuse, the scheme, in response to recommendations from the final report of the second-year review of the National Redress Scheme undertaken by Ms Robyn Kruk AO. The review made 38 recommendations to increase access to redress and improve the scheme's operation, making it more trauma informed, efficient and, ultimately, more survivor focused. The Australian government has supported 34 of the recommendations either in full or in part. This bill builds on the action already taken in response to the review. It seeks to make legislative changes to give effect to the government's response to the remaining, more complex review recommendations. This bill is the final legislative action necessary to implement the Australian government's response to the review.

Importantly, the measures in this bill make genuine change that will have real and direct impact on survivors' experience in accessing redress through the scheme. In line with the scheme's governance arrangements, all states and territories have agreed to the amendments in this bill. The legislation currently before the parliament is part of the final response to the second-year review, which commenced in 2020 and was received by those opposite in 2021, before being finalised by this government.

I note the comments from the member for Deakin, who will move a consequential amendment that will delete provisions of the bill that narrow the scope of the serious criminal convictions special assessment process and remove the restriction on applying from jail. We will be going into consideration in detail on this amendment, but I want to make a few remarks here. This amendment will not be supported by the government, as what is contained in the bill is a measured, proportionate response and in the interests of victims-survivors. In November, when responding to the Prime Minister's acknowledgement of the fifth anniversary of the apology, the Leader of the Opposition said:

I note too that the government has released its final response to the Final report of the second year review of the National Redress Scheme. The opposition thanks and supports the government's commitment to improving the scheme for survivors …

Any survivors listening to this would have assumed that, because these amendments directly go to the second-year review and the government's response, this would mean that those opposite would support these amendments. It is therefore very disappointing that, despite that commitment being made on the stage when we were discussing how important the apology was but also the royal commission and indeed the response, we have now seen the opposition backtrack on that public commitment to try to interfere with the government's response.

I want to make a couple of comments. First, I note the member for Deakin's remarks on the bill's amendments regarding serious criminal convictions and applying from jail and the impact they would have on the scheme's demand, leading to longer wait times for other survivors. Any applicant who applies from jail or who otherwise would have been impacted by the special assessment is not given more swift access to the scheme. The assertion by the member for Deakin is incorrect. These applicants, once determined to be eligible to apply, are given the same access to the scheme as other applicants. I further note remarks made by the member for Deakin that allowing this cohort of survivors who are eligible for the scheme to have easier access to the scheme will increase the wait times for other survivors. It's a pretty novel approach, and I'm pretty disappointed that the member for Deakin has suggested that restricting access to the scheme for one group will ensure that there is a faster processing time. In fact, the answer to this is to put more resources into the scheme, which is exactly what this government has done. We have recognised the increases in the scheme's demand and have allocated $148.1 million in the 2023-24 budget to ensure that there is smooth implementation and processing.

I'll go to the interjections by the member, because, once again, what the Leader of the Opposition signalled was a bipartisan approach, and we now have the politics played by the member for Deakin. The review recommended that the eligibility to the scheme be extended for all applicants with a criminal conviction, including the most serious, and without any safeguards. This government, together with the states and territories, did not accept this recommendation. All Australian governments agreed to maintain the current special assessment process for particularly serious offences, namely unlawful killing, terrorism and sexual offences, and the operator's discretion to refer applicants to the special assessment process. These applicants will still be required to apply for special assessment and receive approval from the scheme's operator consistent with the current practice in order to apply for redress. This process has not changed from that established when those opposite were in government.

The special assessment process requires a scheme operator to seek the advice of a state or territory Attorney-General or a nominated senior official in the jurisdiction where the abuse occurred and give greater weight to their advice and other factors. This is a time-consuming process, and, as the data shows, 91 per cent of applicants with a criminal conviction carrying a custodial sentence over five years are not prevented from applying for redress. This is under those opposite's operating procedures. This change will support scheme efficiencies and contribute to faster processing times for all survivors applying for redress.

I note the member for Deakin listed a number of offences that, in his view, were sufficiently serious and would be excluded from the requirement to undergo the special assessment process. I'm not going to read all of them, but I would suggest that arson causing death is an unlawful killing, and so I think there is some sobriety that needs to be taken to this to make sure that we are considering this in a dispassionate way and in a way that is about putting survivors at the scheme. With references to other offences listed by members, it's the operator's discretion to refer an applicant who has received a custodial sentence of over five years for any offence. As I said, 91 per cent of those applicants currently going through that process are approved. They are not prevented from applying for redress.

As of 26 January 2024, the scheme had received 1,768 applications from people who had indicated a serious criminal conviction of five years or more. Of the applications that have had the special assessment process completed, as I've said, 91 per cent of applicants have not been prevented from applying for redress. As of 26 January 2024, the scheme had received about 905 applications from people who had indicated they were applying from jail under the exceptional circumstances. Of the applications that have had the special assessment process completed, 92 per cent of applicants have been granted exceptional circumstances to apply from jail.

I also note the member's remarks regarding the changes in the bill for applicants in jail, seeking an explanation from the government as to why these applicants should be given unrestricted access to the scheme. Currently all applicants who are in jail must demonstrate exceptional circumstances in order to apply. Exceptional circumstances usually include that they will still be in jail at the scheme's sunset. The restriction on applying from jail disproportionally impacts First Nations applicants in Western Australia and the Northern Territory. Importantly, the changes will provide immediate access to these survivors.

The changes this government has brought to parliament are measured and in recognition of the lifelong impacts of child sexual abuse. I'm disappointed that the member for Deakin is laughing at these things. This is an absolutely serious issue that we have listened to victims-survivors and the bipartisanship nature of this. The rank politics on display right now is just so disappointing. We should be working in this place together for victims-survivors, and they should see that we all have their interests at heart. I would like to acknowledge those members that have spoken in this debate from all sides that have indicated the bipartisan approach that they would like to take to this. I would like to thank the member for Wannon, the former Minister for Social Services, for trying to reiterate the bipartisan support for redress. I thank those who have played a very constructive role. It is important that we all work together to improve this scheme. This scheme is so important to victims-survivors. It doesn't make up for what happened to them, but it goes some way to ensuring that victims-survivors do get the acknowledgement that they deserve. This is about listening to victims-survivors. This is about careful consultation with victims-survivors, states and territories about how we make this scheme better. I hope that all of us in this place can work together to enact that and ensure that we are doing all we can to acknowledge what has happened.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.

See this speech in context