HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Fourth Parliament, First Session (54-1)
2018-09-04 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse (Commonwealth Powers) Bill

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading (resumed on motion).

The Hon. R. SANDERSON (Adelaide—Minister for Child Protection) (12:38): I rise to speak on the National Redress Scheme for victims of institutional child sexual abuse bill 2018. I commend both the Premier and the Attorney-General for formally opting in to the National Redress Scheme on behalf of South Australia in May of this year.

The Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse heard from thousands of sexual abuse survivors across Australia. Each of those were at one time children—often vulnerable members of the community—placed into the trust of institutions and sexually abused by the very people charged with their care and protection. The stories given by those survivors during the royal commission exposed us to the prevalence of institutional sex abuse, the failure of those caring for them to respond and the devastating impacts such abuse has had on the lives of the survivors.

In addition, the commission found that many survivors have not realised justice through traditional civil litigation systems. The commonwealth government, through the establishment of the National Redress Scheme, acknowledges that sexual abuse suffered by children in institutional settings was wrong. It was a shocking breach of trust. It should never have happened. This government, by opting in to the scheme, also acknowledges these facts.

Over the 16 years of the former Labor government, there have been a number of royal commissions and inquests: the Layton child protection review in 2003, two Mullighan inquiries in 2008, the Debelle inquiry in 2014 and, most recently, the Nyland royal commission. Each of these addressed in one shape or form sexual abuse in the South Australian child protection system. It was not until this government was elected in March this year, however, that South Australia had a dedicated child protection minister.

My sole focus is on improving the lives of our most vulnerable children in this state, 3,680 of whom are in out-of-home care. I am committed to protecting those children and improving their lives. Having met with a number of survivors, I am too familiar with the devastating lifelong consequences sexual abuse can have on a child or young person, and I am aware of how long it can take for a survivor to have the capacity and strength to disclose abuse that they have suffered.

The National Redress Scheme will operate for 10 years. The scheme will be operated by the commonwealth government. The majority of the large faith-based institutions, along with other large non-government institutions who are providing services for children in South Australia, such as Scouts, YMCA and the Salvation Army, have opted in. With these large institutions showing their commitment to opt in to the scheme and more non-government institutions from South Australia to opt in with this bill's passing, it is estimated that the scheme will provide an opportunity for over 90 per cent of survivors of institutional child sexual abuse to seek redress.

The scheme will provide survivors with three elements of redress, comprising a monetary payment of up to $150,000, access to counselling or psychological services and a personal response from the responsible institutions. This third element, if the survivor wishes for such contact acknowledges not only abuse and its impacts but also the steps taken to prevent it from happening again. Due to the limits of legislative powers under the Commonwealth Constitution, the passing of this bill is necessary in order for the relevant commonwealth legislation to be adopted and for the National Redress Scheme to become operational here in South Australia.

It is necessary, as it is one of a number of significant steps our government is taking to protect children from institutional sexual abuse, to hold perpetrators to account and to provide support and justice for survivors. The National Redress Scheme will forge a pathway allowing survivors to hold institutions to account without having to pursue an often brutal and complex litigious pathway, a mechanism which often leads to retrauma for survivors. I commend this bill to the house to ensure South Australia's expedient involvement in the National Redress Scheme for all those survivors of abuse in this state.

Ms STINSON (Badcoe) (12:43): I rise to speak on the National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse (Commonwealth Powers) Bill. I am the lead speaker for the opposition. As many in the house would know, this is referral legislation, which means that it largely and simply enables the state of South Australia to join the National Redress Scheme. While this side of the house takes issue with some elements of the National Redress Scheme itself, which of course are in the federal act and which I will raise in detail later, we certainly will not be moving amendments to this bill, the referral legislation.

I think that will come as a comfort to the victims and organisations that will be seeking to join the National Redress Scheme and provide them with some certainty from this point on that it will, in fact, become the case in South Australia that the National Redress Scheme will be available to victims here, hopefully at the earliest possible opportunity. We do support the scheme and we also support the upcoming federal apology. We welcome that and we applaud those efforts.

The bill continues the journey of working with survivors of institutional child sexual assault towards bringing about justice and acknowledging the harm caused to them through no fault of their own. The National Redress Scheme is a result of the federal government's Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. Labor has a record of not shying away from this truly horrifying history but of doing all it can to expose, heal and remedy such abuse. Of course, under Labor we saw several inquiries and royal commissions into abuses that children have suffered in the past. I was privileged to be part of moving the motion for the 10th anniversary of what is commonly known as the Mullighan inquiry.

It was great to be able to spend some time with survivors, to hear their stories and, of course, to recommit, not just as a party but as a state, to do all we can to try to remedy some of the wrongs of the past and make sure that they do not happen again in future. It is a pretty painful experience—a very painful experience—to have such inquiries and royal commissions. Certainly, I was involved on several different levels: as a journalist, covering the happenings of our court system and social justice system, and also later on, more recently, as the chair of the Victim Support Service, which was responsible for providing counselling services to those who participated in the state inquiries and also the more recent federal inquiry.

Through that, I heard hundreds of stories from people who were victims, people who were survivors, family members of those who are still with us and, very sadly, from some family members of victims who are no longer with us, at least in part because of the abuse they suffered at the hands of people who should have been caring for them. I am also acutely aware that all these inquiries and royal commissions at a state and federal level, whilst important for us to go through for victims, for organisations and for us as a community, also do retraumatise people.

It is very tough for people to have to dredge up those experiences and relive them. I really do thank all the victims and their families who came forward to share their stories, as it is only because of them that our community is enlightened as to what happened many years ago and, unfortunately, what continues to happen. But, by knowing those stories, we can start to make some change in our community. I applaud them for that, and to successive governments, I hope, for listening to the issues that they raise and answering their pleas.

This legislation is referral legislation, as I mentioned, and gives effect to the National Redress Scheme. The National Redress Scheme has been established through the commonwealth's National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Act 2018. Clause 4 of the South Australian bill adopts the wording from the commonwealth act. New South Wales and Victoria have already passed this legislation, and there is currently a bill similar to ours before the Queensland parliament. The scheme will operate for 10 years, and payments of up to $150,000 will be made to survivors. The Attorney-General's Department has advised us that modelling suggests that the average payment will be approximately $76,000 and that the scheme is likely to cost the state government about $147 million.

Under the National Redress Scheme, South Australia would be a limited funder of last resort and would only provide compensation where a private organisation is no longer in existence and where a state government institution is equally responsible for the abuse. There are a number of mechanisms built into the bill, including that, although the bill refers state powers to the commonwealth, the federal parliament cannot make changes to the National Redress Scheme that would hinder the operation of a state redress scheme.

Non-government institutions such as churches and charities and non-government schools are not able to participate in the scheme until South Australia has signed up to the National Redress Scheme and the South Australian bill, this referral legislation, has passed the parliament. As I mentioned, with Labor's support that will provide some degree of certainty—although there is always the upper house—that that will go through.

Survivors of abuse that occurred in non-government institutions will only be able to apply for compensation under the scheme if that institution has signed up to the scheme. The Attorney-General's Department has advised us that it estimates that approximately 90 per cent of abuse survivors will be covered by the National Redress Scheme once the South Australian parliament has passed this bill and private institutions have signed up.

We understand these are pretty rough numbers, but there are expected to be approximately 3,000 applications in South Australia, split roughly fifty-fifty between state and non-government institutions. Further advice from the Attorney-General's Department—and we thank them for their work on the bill—indicates that survivors who have either received a payment under the Mullighan redress or ex gratia scheme or have had a civil claim settled could have their payment topped up through the National Redress Scheme. It is understood that previous payments will be indexed to bring them up to their present value.

Where an instance of abuse has been determined to warrant redress, a 7.5 per cent administrative charge will become payable to the commonwealth to sustain the scheme. Participating institutions will contribute $1,000 per claim to the commonwealth government to help support legal support services. The Attorney-General's Department has also advised that there is no cap to legal support services.

During the 2018 election campaign, premier Weatherill announced that a re-elected Labor government would sign up to the National Redress Scheme, and I am pleased to stand here and affirm that commitment today. As I mentioned earlier, we do have some concerns with the scheme itself. I will raise these matters in an effort to enlighten not just the parliament but the community in general about Labor's views on this and maybe point towards some areas that we might either be able to address at a state level during the implementation of this or indeed that we may, with our federal counterparts, seek to remedy in future.

The time for acceptance: we believe that survivors should have sufficient time to decide whether to accept an offer of redress. The scheme gives applicants up to six months to make that decision, whereas the royal commission recommended a year. Six months may seem a long time, but for people dealing with complex trauma and trying to access legal and counselling services, six months indeed may not be enough. It is important that survivors have sufficient time to consider what is a very important decision, because only one application to the scheme is permitted.

The compensation amount: an upper limit of $150,000 is placed on the amount of redress that would be available to any one survivor. The royal commission itself recommended that the payment should actually be $200,000. Certainly the victims groups that I have spoken with in recent weeks and months obviously would like the payment to be $200,000. It is not a huge amount of money and it is the amount of money that the royal commission recommended, so we of course would like to see that increased.

The issue of funder of last resort: under the National Redress Scheme, South Australia would be a limited funder of last resort and would only provide compensation where a private organisation is no longer in existence and where a state government institution is equally responsible for the abuse. If a private institution has not signed up to the Redress Scheme, no compensation will be provided through this scheme to relevant abuse survivors.

We would like to know from the Attorney-General whether there is any mechanism for abuse survivors to seek compensation if the responsible institution has not signed up. Indeed, we understand that the Mullighan ex gratia scheme will be wrapped up, which could cause some complications for those organisations that fall between the cracks.

Indexation: the national bill sets the rate of indexation, specifying that an earlier amount received as compensation will be multiplied by 1.019 for each full year since the receipt of the original amount. This could mean that someone who received a payment previously would not receive funding under the scheme. Once again, we would like to seek clarification from the Attorney-General on whether there is any mechanism for the indexation to be waived in special circumstances.

Criminal history: the bill requires that abuse survivors who have been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of five years or more must have special permission from the scheme operator to access the scheme. This requirement of course ignores the fact that people with a history of childhood abuse and trauma are more likely to be incarcerated later in life. I would like to seek clarity from the Attorney-General on whether there is a way of mitigating this requirement.

A further concern is the inability of prisoners to apply for the National Redress Scheme. Where an abuse survivor is in prison, that survivor is unable to apply to the scheme. For example, a prisoner who has been given a sentence of three years in the final two years of the scheme will be unable to apply. A commitment will be sought by us from the Attorney-General that she will seek a resolution from the Redress Scheme governance board for matters of special circumstance. There are prisoners who are serving terms who would otherwise, if they were not imprisoned, qualify to make an application under this scheme.

While we recognise that the scheme should not be brought into disrepute, we believe that there should be mechanisms for South Australians in that circumstance to be able to have their cases attended to, to have their circumstances examined, and a decision made about what is in not only their best interests but the best interests of our community. Certainly, federal Labor's position is that prisoners should be able to apply.

Limits on eligibility: the scheme also limits eligibility to the Redress Scheme to people who are Australian citizens or permanent Australian residents. We all know that abuse occurred in institutions that cared for child migrants, and there is a concern that some of these people will not be able to access the Redress Scheme if they have returned to their country of birth or are not citizens or permanent residents. We would like to seek some further advice from the Attorney-General about that matter as well.

Counselling: we think the counselling provided to survivors through the Redress Scheme may be inadequate. The royal commission recommended that recipients of redress be able to access counselling for the rest of their lives. The intergovernmental agreement on the National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse provides for up to $5,000, and that is on a sliding scale, for access to counselling. We would certainly like to see some attention paid to that issue.

Indeed, the victims organisations that I have spoken to would like to see no limit on counselling, in recognition of the fact that you really cannot put a price on how long it may take for someone to get the counselling support that they need. Considering that the state already funds organisations to provide free counselling—trauma-informed counselling which was recommended by the royal commission—we believe that the government should take a look at that and take advantage of that situation to enable victims to get the support that they need when they need it and for as long as they need it.

The issue of legal advice: conflicting advice has been provided to us regarding legal support services. We were advised by AGD initially that $1,000 was being provided towards legal support for each claim but then more recently we have been advised that there is no cap to legal support services, so we would be seeking some further information about how that will operate.

Lastly, in regard to the concerns that we would like to raise at this stage, the organisation knowmore will be providing legal services but they do not currently have a South Australian presence. It would be great if they could set up a presence or some sort of constant face-to-face communication with victims who are here. We understand that there will be teleconferencing and phone calls available but, with matters as sensitive as this, I am sure that many victims would feel much more comforted and would be able to have their cases listened to in a more appropriate way if they had that face-to-face interaction with their legal advisers.

In conclusion, I would like to reiterate Labor's support for the National Redress Scheme and this enabling legislation. While the Redress Scheme may not be perfect, we are committed to improving it in any way that we possibly can. It does move in the right direction to attempt at least to correct some of the harm committed by those who breached the trust that was put in them to care for our most vulnerable children.

We look forward to institutions joining the scheme and seeking to right the wrongs of the past. From my consultation, I understand that a large number of institutions will be signing up and, although this is certainly no silver bullet for victims, it does grant some justice to them and we welcome that. The National Redress Scheme and this legislation has Labor's support and we will be pleased to see it implemented in South Australia. I commend the bill to the house.

Debate adjourned on motion of Hon. V.A. Chapman.

Sitting suspended from 13:00 to 14:00.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT