|
senate vote 2021-02-15#11
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2022-07-15 10:52:02
|
Title
Bills — National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Amendment (Technical Amendments) Bill 2020; in Committee- National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Amendment (Technical Amendments) Bill 2020 - in Committee - Reviewing the original determination
Description
<p class="speaker">Louise Pratt</p><p>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.</p>-
- The majority voted against an [amendment](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2021-02-15.219.1) moved by West Australian Senator [Louise Pratt](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/wa/louise_pratt) (Labor), which means it failed.
- ### Amendment text
- > *(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.*
<p>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.</p><p>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?</p> <p class="speaker">Anne Ruston</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p> <p class="speaker">Louise Pratt</p><p>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?</p> <p class="speaker">Anne Ruston</p><p>Clearly, the bill that we're debating today has absolutely no relevance whatsoever. This is actually a technical bill that seeks to make—</p><p> <i>An </i> <i>opposition</i> <i> senator interjecting—</i></p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p> <p class="speaker">Louise Pratt</p><p>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.</p> <p class="speaker">Anne Ruston</p><p>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.</p> <p class="speaker">Louise Pratt</p><p>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?</p> <p class="speaker">Anne Ruston</p><p>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.</p> <p class="speaker">Louise Pratt</p><p>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?</p> <p class="speaker">Anne Ruston</p><p>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.</p> <p class="speaker">Louise Pratt</p><p>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.</p> <p class="speaker">Anne Ruston</p><p>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.</p> <p class="speaker">Rex Patrick</p><p>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—</p> <p class="speaker">Alex Gallacher</p><p>Senator Patrick, no amendments have been moved.</p> <p class="speaker">Rex Patrick</p><p>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.</p> <p class='motion-notice motion-notice-truncated'>Long debate text truncated.</p>-
-
|