|
representatives vote 2021-02-04#9
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2021-04-02 14:16:03
|
Title
Bills — National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Amendment (Technical Amendments) Bill 2020; Consideration in Detail- National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Amendment (Technical Amendments) Bill 2020 - Consideration in Detail - Prior payments
Description
<p class="speaker">Linda Burney</p><p>I move opposition amendment (4):</p><p class="italic">(4) Schedule 1, item 51, page 18 (after line 30), at the end of Part 8-2, add:</p>- The majority voted in favour of *disagreeing* with an [amendment](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2021-02-04.43.1) introduced by Barton MP [Linda Burney](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/barton/linda_burney) (Labor), which means it failed.
- MP Burney explained the [purpose of the amendment]():
- > *This amendment will make sure that payments made in the past for other purposes are not taken from redress payments—for example, to the Stolen Generations. This would mean the scheme would give survivors the benefit of the doubt, and this is only fair.*
- ### Amendment text
- > *(4) 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.*
<p class="italic">202 Deducting prior payments—safeguards</p><p class="italic">(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.</p><p class="italic">(2) Within 90 days after this section commences, the Minister must prepare a report on:</p><p class="italic">(a) what the Minister has done, or plans to do, to ensure the result mentioned in subsection (1); or</p><p class="italic">(b) if the Minister has not done, and does not plan to do, anything—the Minister's reasons for this.</p><p class="italic">(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.</p><p class="italic">(4) In this section:</p><p class="italic"><i>action</i> includes amending this Act, an instrument made under this Act, or any other law.</p><p>This amendment will make sure that payments made in the past for other purposes are not taken from redress payments—for example, to the Stolen Generations. This would mean the scheme would give survivors the benefit of the doubt, and this is only fair.</p> <p class="speaker">Tony Burke</p><p>I am speaking in support of the amendment. Yesterday, the Prime Minister tabled a document concerning who was representing the ministers in the other place. We have significant amendments about something that has a level of bipartisan support. If the government is going to oppose all of these amendments, whoever was yesterday said to be the minister representing the minister in the other place should at least give a reason why you're opposing these amendments. What we're talking about here are people who have been dying before they get the payments. We're seeking to have a mechanism so they get some money before they're dead, after they have gone through this. We don't know if you are going to vote against it because we haven't had the vote on it yet. But, whoever on that side represents the government on this issue, if you are, give us a reason why you're opposing the amendment, or, if you're supporting it, give us a reason why you agree with it.</p> <p class="speaker">Tony Smith</p><p>The question is that amendment (4) be disagreed to.</p>
|