Senator CORMANN (Western Australia—Minister for Finance and the Public Service, Vice-President of the Executive Council and Leader of the Government in the Senate) (12:20): I move:

That the Senate apologise to the victims and survivors of institutional child sexual abuse.

In doing so, I echo the words spoken by the Prime Minister in the House of Representatives on 22 October 2018 and in his national apology to the victims and survivors of institutional child sexual abuse. I also acknowledge the moving remarks made by the Leader of the Opposition in the other place.

There is no more significant duty or weightier moral obligation for a decent nation than the protection of its children. They are so much more than just our future. In their innocence, their unconditional trust and their hopefulness they are the best of us. That that innocence was so often shattered, their trust so often betrayed and those hopes so cruelly quashed will forever remain a stain on our national consciousness. That crimes so horrific were allowed to take place for so long, in so many places, with such impunity, defies comprehension. That so many of those who suffered are not with us today, having sometimes taken their lives or languished in poverty, prison or despair, worsens the blow.

These horrific crimes of sexual abuse occurred in places where children should have felt safe—places where parents trusted that those involved would have the care of their children uppermost in their minds. Predators targeted places like schools and churches, sporting clubs and scout groups, orphanages and foster homes. In many cases the organisations that ran these facilities and services turned a blind eye to the abuses and pretended they didn't happen. These were crimes of unknowable scale. The royal commission estimates that tens of thousands of children were sexually abused in some of Australia's most trusted institutions. Tragically, we will never know the true number. That fact alone will surely haunt our society for a long time.

The commission's report tells a harrowing story of almost complete failure: the failure to protect the innocent; the failure to believe the victims; the failure to challenge the perpetrators; a collective, systemic national failure. No words will ever be able to wind back the clock, heal the scars or erase the evils of the past. No speech will ever truly satisfy those countless thousands who asked for help but were denied. Why were those vile crimes committed against them allowed to occur? Why were the victims not believed? Why was justice and safety so unreachable?

I extend the Senate's heartfelt sympathy to every victim and survivor, to acknowledge and honour them and to commit resolutely to responding fully to the recommendations produced by the royal commission. Ultimately, all of us in this place have a duty to do all that we can as best we can to right past wrongs and prevent future evils. I also convey, on behalf of the government, our deep gratitude to all those who contributed to the royal commission's work: to the commissioners and their staff for their tireless efforts; to Prime Minister Morrison and his predecessors, prime ministers Gillard, Rudd, Abbott and Turnbull, for their leadership in steering this important process to this point.

I especially pay tribute to the thousands of Australians who relived the worst chapters of their lives in making submissions and attending private sessions. Their strength and courage have inspired a nation. Without it, the commission's work, which has exposed the darkest of crimes in the brightest of lights, would not have been possible. The commission's work, which included the handling of over 42,000 calls, the receipt of nearly 26,000 letters and emails and the holding of over 8,000 private sessions, provides a path forward that is comprehensive, considered and essential on the long road to national healing. We must honour the courage and endurance of those who suffered. We must honour them by faithful implementation of the commission's findings. As we implement 104 of the commission's remaining 122 recommendations directed to the Commonwealth, with the remaining 18 being carefully examined, I'm confident that we will develop a timely and comprehensive bipartisan response.

As the Prime Minister stated, the Commonwealth government must lead the way. With the commencement of the national redress scheme, with the support of the states and territories, and the establishment of the National Office for Child Safety, which will now report directly to the Prime Minister, federal, state and territory governments across the country are working to establish a national database on working with children which can be shared nationally. We are also removing the ability of child sex offenders to travel overseas without permission. The task before us is a daunting one but, by harnessing the remarkable courage and conviction of the many victims and survivors, it will be achieved.

This is an episode in our nation's history of unfathomable horror, of innocence lost, of trust denied, of hopes and expectations dashed and of the triumph of evil. But thousands of courageous Australians would not be silenced; they would not let evil prevail. They raised their voices. To our collective shame, it took us too long to heed their calls. But they persisted. Despite the pain and the loss, they would not be denied. They roused the nation's dormant conscience into action. On this day and into the future, let us be worthy of them. To the children who suffered so much for so long and in such silence: we are sorry. To the parents, spouses, partners, husbands, wives and children who have struggled with the cruel after-effects of that suffering: we are sorry. To the generations of today and those that came before: we are sorry.

Senator WONG (South Australia—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (12:28): The opposition joins with the government and, indeed, all senators in expressing our most profound sorrow for the suffering and trauma experienced by all victims and survivors of institutional child sexual abuse. To all of those who experienced abuse at the hands of those whose duty it was to care for you, to nurture you and to look after you: I say sorry. To the parents and family members who suffered the distress and trauma of learning that their precious children had been abused by those they trusted to take care of them: I say sorry. I say sorry for your pain. I say sorry for your suffering. I say sorry for the innocence that was stolen. I say sorry for your loss of dignity, a loss for which we, not you, bear shame. I say sorry for your loss of self-esteem and self-worth—a loss, again, for which we, not you, bear the blame. I say sorry for the burden of grief you have carried for so many years—indeed, for so many decades.

I say sorry to those among you who were forcibly removed from country, from your spiritual home, and then subjected to physical and psychological violence. I say sorry to those who joined youth groups, who joined the cadet corps and military apprenticeship schools and suffered abuse at the hands of those who should have been your carers and mentors. I say sorry to those of you who, fleeing the privations of postwar Europe, were transported to secular and religious institutions where criminal predators exploited your separation and vulnerability. I say sorry to those who were ignored, disbelieved or abandoned when they sought help. I say sorry for the lives irretrievably damaged, for those lives spent in misery or in jail, and for the so many lives which have ended in tragedy. And I say sorry that even though institutions knew about crimes committed against you they did nothing to care for you and that those same institutions and their leaders did nothing to bring perpetrators to justice but instead turned a blind eye or covered up their crimes; I say sorry.

The crimes that were committed against children in institutions, in schools, in churches, in recreational facilities and in community centres are an indelible stain on the reputation of those institutions and on the character of their leaders. But more than that, the crimes committed against children and their families are an indelible stain on our society as a whole—on all of us. If the measure of a society is its caring treatment of those most vulnerable, then we as a society failed you, and in doing so we failed ourselves. By failing to act when facts were known to institutional leaders, to people in authority, to senior members of church hierarchies and to our law enforcement agencies, we as a society condoned the evil of those who committed crimes against children, and we are profoundly sorry for our collective sins of commission and omission.

We should recognise the perseverance and endurance of those very brave Australians—victims and survivors, family members, journalists and police officers—who set in train the royal commission that has brought us to this point. Without them we would not have found ourselves in a position, even at this late stage, to apologise for the pain and suffering that was inflicted, to apologise for the crimes committed and to apologise for the callousness of so many institutional and religious leaders who were complicit in these crimes by looking the other way or by covering them up. But, most of all, the many survivors who came forward and told the truth to royal commissioners about what happened to them showed tremendous courage and selflessness. Their suffering is inevitably relived, pain rekindled and vulnerability experienced once again. Our admiration for their bravery and generosity mirrors the depth of our sorrow that these things happened in the first place. If you had not spoken, the apology and the actions that will follow would never have happened.

The perseverance of the families and relatives of victims and survivors has also been remarkable, and our Prime Minister Julia Gillard displayed her characteristic compassion and courage by establishing the royal commission. This commission, through its persistent determination to give voice to survivors, its findings and its recommendations, has performed a critically important service to the Australian community. It has exposed the appalling suffering of children and young people. It has chronicled the truth. It has identified the criminals who abused them. It has revealed the cover-ups, the complicity and the extent to which religious institutions exploited the law and legal processes to avoid legal accountability. The royal commission has shown us how power and money, entitlement and privilege, corrupt those who preach compassion but deny it to the victims and survivors of their acts. It has made clear for all to see how too many institutional and religious leaders abandoned their duty to protect the most vulnerable. So many placed a wrong construction of the interests of their religious and civil institution ahead of the interests of those who suffered.

This was a callous act. This was an abuse of power, and it harmed many. Justices McClellan and Coate, along with Commissioners Atkinson, Fitzgerald, Milroy and Murray, deserve our heartfelt thanks. There was perhaps no better tribute to the quality of the royal commissioners' work than the comment of one of the witnesses, who wrote, 'You cannot know what it meant to be listened to with such respect and made to feel that what happened to me really mattered.'

The royal commission's findings are horrific and the scale of abuse is overwhelming. Of those survivors who spoke to the commission, 10½ per cent alleged abuse at the hands non-government, non-religious institutions; 32½ per cent at the hands of government-run institutions; 22.4 per cent at the hands of other Protestant denominations; and 35.7 per cent at the hands of the Catholic Church. The commission's report found that, of the 1,880 perpetrators from within the Catholic Church, 572 were priests. Anglican clergy and lay youth leaders were also engaged in the sexual abuse of children, as were officers of the Salvation Army. It appears that each of these denominations harboured sexual predators and, worse, in many cases knew about it, but, instead of acting to protect children in their care, they acted to protect perpetrators and the reputations of their institutions with well-established procedures to cover up crimes, by moving criminals onto other parishes and other institutions where they could continue to prey on children, the vulnerable, the disabled and the powerless. This collusion was an abuse of power. This collusion compounded harm, and we condemn it. Those who we should most admire are the survivors who came forward to tell the truth, to share their hurt, their pain and their violation. So, to the members of the national apology to victims and survivors of institutional child sexual abuse reference group, which has guided and informed this parliament's apology, thank you.

Of course, sorrow for wrongs committed is worthless without genuine restitution. Simply saying sorry is meaningless unless there is repentance and a resolution to prevent the commission of further evils to make things right. Here we must ask ourselves and, more importantly, ask the institutions whether the royal commission's discovery of all these crimes against children has had the requisite impact on leaders, whether there is any repentance for crimes committed. Religious bodies must never again be able to use the separation of church and state as an excuse to cover up and perpetuate criminal behaviour, while simultaneously employing legal tactics to minimise financial responsibility. Hiding behind artificial legal structures and trusts that deny them legal personality is not the behaviour of those showing contrition. Rather, it looks like intention to continue to deny survivors redress and recompense, to compound injury with insult. The extent of the crimes against children at the hands of both secular and religious institutions was the result of failure that was both systemic and systematic. If we are to ensure that such exploitation is never to be repeated, those failures must be addressed as a matter of urgency.

Beyond contrition and repentance is of course atonement. What are these many institutions intending to do to atone for these failures? Atonement demands deep introspection, a thorough reappraisal of how power is acquired, used and protected. It requires significant structural reform on the part of all institutions, and that is the real challenge that faces institutional leaders: how are they going to reform their structures and systems so as to prevent the recurrence of such widespread criminality? Atonement also demands reconciliation, and this is by far the greatest challenge for all of us. To restore trust after betrayal is perhaps the most difficult thing for a person to do. How much more difficult is it for an entire cohort of survivors? Many of the survivors of child sexual abuse and their families retain deep anger towards those who committed crimes and the institutions that harboured them, and they cannot be expected to extend reconciliation and restore trust to those who continue to deny them rights. Reconciliation also demands action on the part of those who offended, and guilt is not expunged by words. All of us who share that guilt, whether through ignorance, inadvertence or indifference, must back up expressions of sorrow and apology with actions that repair damage where we can and restore trust where we might.

The opposition, like the government, supports all the recommendations of the royal commission and we also will work to ensure they are implemented in full. The National Redress Scheme supported by Commonwealth, state and territory governments is key to the journey to reconciliation. The scheme is far from perfect. It is too slow. Some survivors have been unfairly excluded, and some institutions are yet to sign up. It is imperative that institutions sign up and offer their unstinting support. Nothing less is acceptable. Survivors have been waiting decades for redress and, sadly, in many cases, they are running out of time. It is imperative that we in the parliament be guided by the original recommendations of the royal commission and that we listen to survivors throughout this process.

The National Office for Child Safety is another vital element in ensuring children are cared for, nurtured and protected. The safety of all our children is paramount, and it is critical that children are themselves empowered to act in their own interests. They must be taught to recognise danger and to tell their parents and those caring for them when they see or experience something that they think is wrong, and they must be believed. The opposition also supports the establishment of a national centre of excellence. This will help survivors of institutional child sexual abuse to address the issues of stigma, to ensure that support services represent best practice to keep the memory of these injustices alive and to promote awareness of impacts of child sexual abuse and the avenues for its prevention. I encourage the states and territories to support this initiative.

The royal commission has held up a mirror to the nation, and we have been shocked by what we have seen. The nation is ashamed and sorry. But we know that we are better than this and we can do better than this. All of you to whom we say sorry today can expect no less. So, as we beg the forgiveness of those who have suffered such unspeakable pain, we also know we must restore justice and rebuild trust. We must resolve as a nation that we will do everything in our power to prevent this abuse, betrayal and harm from ever happening again.

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (12:40): I rise to support the apology, to support the government's statement and the opposition's statement and to add some words on behalf of the Australian Greens. We too apologise for the years of abuse, suffering, trauma, the ongoing trauma, the nightmares and the intergenerational trauma that survivors endured, not just in the past but recent survivors as well. As part of the references committee we heard from survivors who suffered recent abuse through institutions. We need to remember that this is ongoing. We apologise for the fact that survivors were subjected to institutional abuse by people that abused the power that they had over innocent young people; institutions that these children thought they should be able to put their respect in and that they could trust. That trust was abused.

Just last week I was in Newcastle. We heard from survivors. We were talking about redress, which I will come back to. People spoke of the fear of answering the door, of the nightmares that they suffered and of the lifelong sentence that people were given through this abuse. We heard of the powerful disincentives to disclose. So we are sorry and we apologise. We also apologise to the prisoners that are currently in our justice system as a result of the abuse that they endured as children in institutions. We apologise to those who were originally going to be excluded from the redress system because of the failure to understand the impact of abuse and its close association with addiction, which leads to interactions with the justice system.

Not only was young children's trust abused, but the abuse occurred again when they were not believed. When they sought to tell people in authority, whether it was the people in authority in the institutions, sometimes it was their parents who actually believed the abusers rather than their own children. We apologise to those children as well.

I know there are lots of quotes that have been used while we have been discussing the apology. When I was in Newcastle just last week, I was given a book by a survivor. It's called Our Little Secret, by Lorraine Hall. I thought that I would quote from her experiences in her book. She said: 'The title of Our Little Secret relates to the shame I felt holding the secret of my abuse. The secrets we hold cause a double bind, meaning the perpetrator will often show attention and love to the victim and then harm the victim. We, as victims, deny a certain aspect of the reality of the abuse and are often confused about love and our attachment to the perpetrator. Survivors take it to be their fault, their shame. Perpetrators hold authoritarian power over us as children and often into our adulthood, rendering their victims powerless. Feelings such as being worthless and not good enough are always present, either in our behaviours or our beliefs about ourselves. Perpetrators either say or imply keeping a secret of the abuse. Secrets are like a curse in as much as the guilt and shame we hold in our self-beliefs. We cannot see shame, but it perpetrates into our mental, spiritual and emotional beliefs about ourselves, right down to our cellular memory. We also hold it in our bodies. What survivor doesn't have feelings or thoughts of being powerless, worthless, not good enough and all alone? Shame and the double bind has been a huge part of my journey, to realise none of it was mine. I needed to take responsibility for myself and let go of these negative beliefs and patterns that I took on. It was not and never was ours or my secret or my fault.'

That is what we also acknowledge and want to say to survivors: it was not your fault. It was not your fault that the abuse occurred. It was not your fault that you were not believed. But you are believed now. We, as a nation, believe you. We, as a nation, are apologising for the abuse. We also need to make sure that we do everything that we can to make sure that child abuse is stamped out in this country—that we have the processes in place to ensure that this is a thing of the past, that we protect and support our children.

One of the key issues that has not been picked up, although apologies have been given—I've heard them—regards those who were not covered by the royal commission; those who suffered physical abuse in institutions that is not classed as sexual abuse. Many, many children were abused in institutions, although it is not classed as sexual abuse. That has also led to years of trauma, and we apologise to you for the abuse that you suffered at the hands of those powerful people in institutions. There was a quote I heard just recently—in fact, in Newcastle—'Trauma sticks, shifts and changes,' which is why we need to acknowledge that the abuse that children suffered has lifelong impacts and the trauma suffered sticks, but it also can change, depending on the circumstances that people confront, and it can shift.

I want to talk about the things that perhaps haven't been talked about. We have spoken about the need for redress and to make sure this doesn't happen again, but there are some issues that are still yet to be resolved that survivors are asking us to address. First, I want to address the issues around redress. We need to make sure that the actions we take as a nation to offer redress, in terms of addressing and offering support to people, are not retraumatising people. For example, people have spoken about the retraumatising aspect of needing to fill in a form to apply for redress. The Prime Minister has acknowledged that part 3 of the form has caused some trauma, but the amendments that are being made, according to survivors, do not go far enough. A very simple point has been made: that there should be a note on the form saying, 'Do not fill this in alone,' because it is very likely that filling it in will have very significant impacts. Things like going to a session or a counselling session with someone to help you fill in the form—being much more flexible about the way we address the form and gathering the information that is required for redress.

The issue around counselling is one that many people want us to address. I've spoken about the trauma that shifts, that sticks, that changes; the intergenerational trauma; the life-long trauma; and the impacts of PTSD. We need to make sure that we have counselling support for survivors for as long as they live. That means not putting a money limit on the amount of counselling that is received. That means making sure that we offer top-quality trauma-informed counselling. These are the issues that survivors have asked us to raise, and we, as a nation, need to continue that conversation to ensure that we're offering those supports.

As has been touched on in other contributions here today and a fortnight ago, the fact that some institutions have for years and years essentially operated as protection rackets needs to be recognised and acknowledged. We need to make sure that institutions are opting in to the Redress Scheme, are acknowledging their role and are no longer continuing to protect people in high places.

We need to go to those hard places that are, in fact, the recommendations that the government is still continuing. These issues are hard—I'm not denying it—but we, as a nation, have to go there. We also need to address issues like the confessional. As a nation, we need to recognise that we need to put children's safety first. Another issue that has been raised with me by survivors is that it still causes deep pain and trauma to see the names of their abusers who have been given honours, and our failure to deal with that. I acknowledge that we need to address that issue, and the Greens commit to making sure that we are addressing that issue.

We, as a nation, are sorry. We are sorry for what happened. We are sorry for not believing. We are sorry for the ongoing trauma and the intergenerational trauma. We also know that this abuse has had not only lifelong impacts but impacts on families. It has torn families apart. It has impacted on children. It has impacted on grandchildren.

We need to follow through on the commitments that we have made to ensure that we get redress right, to ensure that we hold institutions and the people in those institutions to account, to ensure that this does not happen again and to ensure that we help people on their healing journey and acknowledge that they will need to continue to be supported and that there will be ongoing issues in their lives. For example, many people have articulated their deep fear of institutions. What impact will that have on their life in the future? For example, many survivors are ageing. How do we support people in the future as they age? These are all issues that as part of our apology we acknowledge we need to take on and address.

Let me finish with the deep sense of sorrow and grief that we as a nation have felt. We as a nation articulate our support for survivors and our deep apology for the years of abuse, suffering and trauma that they have endured.

Senator KENEALLY (New South Wales) (12:57): Ten years ago young Catholic people from all parts of the globe descended on Sydney for World Youth Day. Held every two years, World Youth Day is the Catholic Church's global festival of faith, prayer and liturgy and a celebration of youth and young adults. In 2008 it was the largest single event on the planet after the Beijing Olympics. Pope Benedict came to Sydney for World Youth Day and Cardinal George Pell basked in the glow of the event. The city itself seemed to be filled with joy and peace. At the time, I was a minister in the New South Wales government and the government spokesperson for World Youth Day. In 2008 the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse had not yet taken place, the Irish government had not yet published the Ryan report into sexual abuse in the Catholic Church in that country, the movie Spotlight had not yet been made, and most people assumed that the isolated reports of clerical sexual abuse of children were just that—isolated.

I recall a meeting with Cardinal George Pell in the weeks leading up to World Youth Day. My job as a government minister was to oversee the logistics supporting the event—the transport, the health services and the public safety—and to provide media interviews and briefings and public information about the impact of the event on residents and businesses in Sydney. I recall suggesting to the cardinal that we consider that someone may come forward during the event to raise a historic or current complaint of sexual abuse at the hands of Catholic clergy and it would be prudent to plan for a response. I will never forget the cardinal's answer. He gave me a hard look and said, 'No-one would dare disrupt such a joyous occasion with such an allegation.' Then he would have no further discussion with us on the matter. I've often reflected on that conversation. I tell that story today in the context of the national apology delivered by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition in the other house and here today by Senator Cormann, supported by Senator Wong.

The Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse was ordered by the former Prime Minister Julia Gillard in 2012. I pay tribute to Prime Minister Gillard for her determination and courage to help our nation face this dark truth of our story. Ms Gillard attended the apology in the parliament, and sitting next to her, at times holding her hand, was Christine Foster. Chrissie and her husband, Anthony Foster, are the parents of Emma and Katie Foster. Both girls were raped and abused by Father Kevin O'Donnell in Victoria. Father O'Donnell had been raping children for decades.

During World Youth Day, Anthony Foster spoke up, and he spoke out. Anthony and Chrissie had been advocating within the church for a decade, trying to get justice for their daughters and for others who had been victims of sexual abuse at the hands of Catholic clergy. They had been met with silence, with gross inadequacy, and with an unwillingness to acknowledge or appropriately respond to the horror their daughters and other children had experienced at the hands of Catholic clergy. The response of the Catholic leadership in Australia to Anthony Foster's public comments during World Youth Day was dismal. Archbishop Anthony Fisher said that the community should 'stop dwelling crankily on old wounds'. Cardinal Pell said that the church had paid for counselling for the Foster girls and that he really had nothing much to do with the Foster case.

There are many people who bravely fought and advocated for a royal commission into institutional responses to child sexual abuse, but chief among these were Anthony and Chrissie Foster. Their advocacy led to the promise of a commission of inquiry in Victoria in 2012 and then the announcement of a national royal commission later that year by Prime Minister Gillard. The Fosters demonstrate bravery, unflinching determination, ongoing love for their children and all other victims, and an unwavering insistence on justice. Their daughter Emma took her own life in 2008 at age 26 after a traumatic life which included self-harming and drug addiction. Anthony died in 2017, and it was a loss to our nation. It was most fitting that Chrissie, with her daughter Katie, attended the national apology.

I applaud the Fosters' decision to use World Youth Day in 2008 as an opportunity to speak up. The world's media and the nation's attention was on young people and the Catholic Church, and the Fosters knew that there would likely never be a better time in Australia to bring to the fore the dark and diabolical truth the Catholic Church was trying to keep hidden. I can't imagine the pain that World Youth Day in 2008 must have caused the thousands of Australians who suffered horrific abuse at the hands of Catholic clergy. As a former state legislator and a minister responsible for the event, I am sorry.

For the past decade, as a legislator and as a Catholic, I have wrestled with the grotesque juxtaposition that the Catholic Church poses. At its best, the Catholic Church fires up its young believers by preaching the gospel messages and inspiring social action on poverty, inequality, injustice, homelessness, the environment and welcoming refugees. Sydney witnessed this firsthand when World Youth Day came to an often cynical town in 2008. From the moment the first pilgrims landed at Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport, they charmed the city with their faith, their generosity and their joy. At its worst, though, the Catholic Church has been diabolical to young people. Across the world, the church has presided over the grotesque phenomenon of clerical sexual abuse of children and compounded these sins with weak, pathetic decisions by priests and bishops to hide these crimes.

Through the work of the royal commission, Australia has witnessed the horror perpetrated by the Catholic Church. Five thousand submissions relating to the Catholic Church were made to the commission. The victims' stories are harrowing, and their testimony is raw. In New South Wales, allegations of the systematic cover-up of sexual abuse of children by Catholic clergy in the Maitland-Newcastle diocese came to light in 2012 as a result of public comments by detective Peter Fox. The royal commission specifically examined Catholic Church authorities in the Maitland-Newcastle region in relation to allegations of child sexual abuse by clergy and religious. At this stage, the report into the Maitland-Newcastle diocese has not been made public, as the inquiry's terms of reference require that its work does not prejudice current or future criminal or civil proceedings.

I stand here today, joining the Leader of the Government in the Senate, Senator Cormann, and the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, Senator Wong, endorsing the words of the national apology to victims and survivors of institutional sexual abuse. I do so not just as a senator for New South Wales but also as Premier of New South Wales from December 2009 to March 2011. I acknowledge that on 22 October this year the New South Wales Premier, Gladys Berejiklian, delivered an apology to survivors of institutional sexual abuse on behalf of the New South Wales government. In doing so, she said:

On behalf of the Government and people of NSW, to every survivor, I apologise deeply and unreservedly—for the pain they have suffered, and for the failure of governments and institutions to protect them when they needed it most.

I join with Premier Berejiklian in expressing that apology.

The stark reality the royal commission lays bare is that our nation failed thousands of young people entrusted to institutions that were supposed to care for them but, instead, abused them. Residential institutions, out-of-home placements, schools, churches, sporting groups, cultural and other community organisations, and youth detention centres perpetrated violence and sexual abuse on those in their care. These organisations failed to acknowledge, punish or protect future victims. They failed to care for the survivor.

This failure is doubly compounded by state and national public authorities, for they both failed in their duty to protect children and young people directly in their care and, in some instances, in their responsibilities to properly investigate and prosecute. For too long, victims and survivors of institutional sexual abuse have suffered in silence. They have now broken that silence with courage and with honesty and by speaking out through the royal commission. The commissioners listened. They understood. They helped us all understand. The commission has made serious and extensive recommendations, and these are being accepted by the government with the support of the opposition. It is incumbent upon all of us, legislators and the wider community, to ensure we act now and in the future to implement these recommendations.

The silence of conspiracy and cover-up, of inaction and denial on the part of institutions, is now broken. Australia cannot be silent anymore. We will not deny the suffering of survivors and we cannot say we did not know how to keep children safe in institutional settings, in the future. Anthony and Chrissie Foster broke the silence, during World Youth Day, in 2008. They brought before us their daughters' truth. Now the parliament has spoken and expressed its sorrow for Emma, for Katie and for all the thousands of children our nation's institutions have failed. I also acknowledge that the Catholic Archbishop of Sydney, Anthony Fisher, apologised. On 4 October this year, in the presence of Pope Francis, at the Synod for Bishops in the Vatican, Fisher apologised:

For the shameful deeds of some priests, religious and lay people, perpetrated upon you or other young people just like you, and the terrible damage that has done; for the failure of too many bishops and others to respond appropriately when abuse was identified, and to do all in their power to keep you safe; and for the damage thus done to the Church’s credibility and to your trust …

I welcome these words. However, the reality is that the leadership of the Catholic Church in Australia and in the Vatican have yet to take sufficient steps to address the culture of clericalism and the flawed ecclesiology that encouraged the extensive and systematic abuse of children in the church's care.

The words we say today in the Australian Senate cannot repair this damage or compensate for this failing of our nation's public and private institutions. But they can begin our determination to do what we as a nation can to give comfort, support, assistance and, importantly, justice to survivors. These words must compel us to act. We must ensure that children and young people in institutions, or anywhere else in our care, are safe from violence and abuse now and in the future.

Senator McALLISTER (New South Wales—Deputy Opposition Whip in the Senate) (13:10): After decades of enforced silence, business in our parliament was suspended last month to publicly acknowledge and apologise for the pain that was caused by institutional child sexual abuse. I cannot imagine how that must have felt for those who have spent years striving to be heard and striving to be believed. I can only add my voice to what has already been said. I, like the rest of the nation, am truly sorry. I am sorry for what was done to you, and I am sorry for what was not done for you. It is truly unforgiveable.

It was impossible not to be moved by the stories of deeply personal grief and betrayal that were revealed at the royal commission. All of Australia has heard witness after witness speaking with the perfect eloquence of truth. It shouldn't have taken a royal commission for these voices to be heard and to be believed, yet for many it was the first time that they were. Every Australian now knows how children suffered in places that they should have felt safe—in their schools, in their scout halls, in their churches and in their beds. This is uncomfortable knowledge. But that discomfort is not something that we should shy away from; it is something that should motivate us.

We do a great disservice to victims and survivors if we pass off what happened as the work of some other. The perpetrators held positions of authority and respect in our communities. It is wrong to say that evil happened; evil was done. Years ago, in a very different context, thinkers grappled with the concept of the banality of evil—and their conclusions hold some truth for us today. These abuses happened among us. These horrible acts were done by people who led otherwise respectful lives; they were ignored by others who found it easier to stay silent in institutions that were happy for children to pay the price for maintaining their public reputations. We cannot begin our reckoning with that past until we recognise our culpability as a community for what occurred, and we cannot complete that reckoning until we make sure that the past cannot be repeated.

I know that the act of appearing before the royal commission and reliving what happened took a toll on many people. So too did the years of advocacy and the battle for justice that came before it. Victims and survivors did this not just for themselves but to make sure that no other child would have to live through what they did. The royal commission has generated a comprehensive list of reforms, and there is no excuse or reason for resiling from them. As the opposition leader, Bill Shorten, said in the other place, Labor will, wherever we sit in this parliament in coming years, unequivocally support the implementation of the royal commission, with no discounting or delay. This is something we owe to the children whose suffering brought about the royal commission. It is also something we owe to those yet to come. The apology has been described as a once-in-a-generation event. It must not become a 'once-a-generation event'. This must never happen again.

Senator GRIFF (South Australia) (13:13): On behalf of Centre Alliance—including my Senate colleague Rex Patrick and the member for Mayo, Rebekha Sharkie—I rise to speak on the national apology to Australian survivors and victims of child sexual abuse. In doing so, I endorse the sentiments expressed last month in support of this motion by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives. I commend them and the contributions made today in this place, because the apology acknowledged the failure of Australian governments since Federation to afford children the protection they surely deserve.

Australia is on a mercy mission to ask childhood victims of institutional abuse to forgive us, to find it in their hearts to accept our collective, heartfelt apology for the heinous crimes they endured and that shame us as a nation. We're ashamed of the sexual abuse committed against terrified children in orphanages, churches, children's homes, recreational groups and foster care by those who were mistakenly trusted to care for them. In many cases, powerful people in taxpayer funded state-care positions abused the public faith put in them by turning a blind eye to what was happening. Others were more sinister in their offending, as one case in my home state illustrated.

In 2015, Families SA child protection carer Shannon McCoole was sentenced to 35 years in jail with a nonparole period of 28 years for sexually abusing babies and young children in state care. McCoole was also the head administrator of a highly sophisticated dark web child pornography site. He was arrested only after Danish police identified one of his photos and informed local authorities. McCoole's crimes prompted SA's own child-protection system royal commission. That inquiry heard that a colleague had reported McCoole for the suspected rape of a six-year-old girl a year before his arrest. But because McCoole had gained the trust of his managers, they dismissed the complaint without even reporting it to authorities. I'm still shocked that he could offend for so long under the nose of a government department and that reports of his evil could be ignored by that same department. All the while, his offending continued, and each time another little life was forever damaged by his putrid actions.

The National Redress Scheme, the National Office for Child Safety and the implementation of the royal commission's recommendations will indeed go a long way towards fixing the problems within institutions. But, sadly, the motion before us cannot be taken to mean that child sexual abuse is a thing of the past. The only way to tackle it is to be ruthless in identifying and reporting offenders and to do our utmost to ensure that children are not put in harm's way. First and foremost, that means listening and acting when suspicions are raised rather than ignoring, dismissing or minimising them. Like domestic violence and elder abuse, child sexual abuse, especially in the form of incest, has long been and in many cases still is taboo.

Despite the pain involved, Australia is becoming a more mature nation. We are confronting our past, acknowledging our failures and making more amends and efforts to eliminate multiple cycles of violence. Unfortunately, that can't be said for millions of other children throughout the world. In this respect, Australia is leading by example. However, in this global online age we must be ever alert to how the problem of child exploitation is continually changing. As the McCoole case proves, the internet looms large in those changes. With public institutions now becoming more tightly controlled, it's fair to say that predators are turning to the internet to create their own private groups. The eradication of child abuse in any form is and will always be a work in progress, and it is one that this and future parliaments must continue to be engaged with for the good of our nation.

This motion goes some way towards expressing the sorrow and guilt we all feel as a nation for the loss of innocence experienced by victims and survivors. It acknowledges this parliament's responsibility towards participating in their healing. It is undeniably our responsibility to say to the victims who prevailed over their torment—and, sadly, to those who didn't—that we are deeply sorry that they were treated like easy targets and not precious children, abused rather than nurtured, starved of love rather than nourished and encouraged, and left out in the cold when they should have been brought into the warm. We can't say 'sorry' enough for the cries for help that were ignored or never heard, the stories of extreme cruelty that were never believed, and the tales of physical, emotional and sexual torture that were pushed aside.

But, most of all, we are so sorry that it has taken this long for Australia to properly take notice and finally take action against a despicable wrong. The royal commission's final report reveals insights gleaned from over 8,000 private sessions with survivors, along with institutional responses to child sexual abuse. The gut-wrenching facts are that the average age of victims when first abused was 10 years old, over 58 per cent of survivors confirm the abuse took place in an institution managed by a religious organisation—primarily Catholic—32.5 per cent were in a government-run institution; and 10.5 per cent were in a non-government, non-religious institution. Alarmingly, of the survivors who provided information about the frequency of their abuse, most said that they had experienced multiple episodes and many by multiple people. And this is just skimming the surface of the sickening prevalence of such crimes over many decades.

I thank the royal commission for acknowledging that people have been dying to change things and get the justice they deserve. We will all be doing everything in our power to deliver on its recommendations. We will use our power and authority to take action without compromise. But, above all, to those victims who stepped forward to bravely share their experiences, we owe a profound thanks. Without this, we would not be where we are today. So thank you, on behalf of generations to come. And, finally, I would like to add my voice to say, however belatedly, we believe you, we respect you, we applaud you, and we owe you an everlasting debt of gratitude.

Senator POLLEY (Tasmania) (13:21): I rise to contribute some remarks to the debate on the motion of Senator Cormann. I'd also like to acknowledge those of my colleagues who have spoken before me. Our children are our greatest gifts. Their innocence should always be protected. The crimes against these children who were robbed of their innocence have stained our nation. The cover-ups of these crimes have stained our nation. The fact that these children were not heard or believed has stained our nation. The stain on the nation has touched all of us. It's heartbreaking. I want to pay tribute to the so many who have helped us to get to this point. Whether they be survivors, advocates, in the legal profession or policymakers, I thank you. To those who made the painful and brave decision to come forward to the royal commission, thank you. You've made a difference and you are part of the reason why atrocities like these will hopefully never happen again.

I'd like to acknowledge the former Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, for setting up the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse in 2012. I thank the former Prime Minister for her courage and for ensuring that the royal commission got to the bottom of all these harrowing stories, because her acknowledgement and her belief that the children should be heard have done more to protect the children of the future than anyone else has done. The applause she received and the way the room erupted when she was in Canberra last month for the national apology is a testament to the profound impact she had on the lives of so many. Today, we honour every survivor in this country. We hear you, we believe in you and we are so sorry. We also honour and remember those who are no longer with us. The words spoken in this place today are for you. Our words are also for your families. As many have said in the other place, as a nation, we failed you, and this will always be our shame. The perpetrating institutions of this abuse, who covered it up and refused to be held accountable, failed dismally. They failed these children and they failed all of us. As former Prime Minister Julia Gillard said back in 2012, 'These are insidious, evil acts to which no child should be subject.' I'm sorry for this pain that can never be undone.

I don't think there is any state or church in Australia that wasn't touched by this evil. As a woman of faith, I'm deeply appalled at the institutions and the churches that failed so abysmally to stand for the values they were supposed to represent. I'm profoundly sorry for the experiences that people have had at the hands of people who should have known better, at the hands of those who breached their trust—trust given by our society, trust that was so disgracefully destroyed. Nothing can take away the deep, harrowing sadness, pain, emptiness, helplessness and betrayal that you have all lived with for too long. Nothing can take away the tears and the emotional exhaustion that still fatigues you to this day. You carry the pain with you every day, and I am so sorry for the things you have missed out on, the things you've been unable to enjoy, the things you've been held back from and the lives you will never get back. There are survivors who have spoken about not wanting to go on anymore. They feel crushed under the astonishing weight of the pain they carry with them every single day. Thank you for showing up, for fighting and for being part of the process. Thank you for being brave and giving strength to others who are yet to, or may never, share what happened to them.

I know a lot of words are used in this place, and I know that actions speak louder than words. There has been great momentum from the royal commission, but we need to keep moving forward. As the Leader of the Opposition, Bill Shorten, rightly put last month, it is now up to those in power, no longer just the survivors and the victims and their advocates. Sadly, even though I wish we could, we can't promise a country where abuse no longer exists. But we can promise a country where we commit to hearing and believing our children. We can commit to ensuring that we, as a government and a community, do our very best to ensure such abuse never happens again. We can ensure that we continue to do what the royal commission did so well, and that was to listen to the people whose lives have been damaged by treatment that they did not deserve and that they did not ask for. In acknowledging how real this pain is, we can commit to an effective redress system.

I won't for a second pretend that the National Redress Scheme can make up for the pain, the suffering and the trauma experienced by survivors, but redress is a vital step along the path to healing for survivors of child sexual abuse and is a vital step for all of us as a nation and a community. It's incumbent on all of us as parliamentarians to work together to get the rollout of the National Redress Scheme right. This is imperative. Survivors have been through so much and have waited so long. It is absolutely imperative that we get this right. I think it's so important that we continue to work together to right the wrongs of years gone by and to ensure that those events can never be repeated so that the institutions and the sporting groups and the Scouts and the churches that are entrusted with the care of children actually deliver that care. The stain left on our nation is something we will have to live with. These churches and institutions must work to restore the faith and trust of the community that they serve. There's been so much damage and hurt, and trust has been broken. It's time for healing; it's time for our nation to say sorry.

I will close by simply saying that we are sorry. I am so sorry. We believe you. I believe you.

Senator DI NATALE (Victoria—Leader of the Australian Greens) (13:29): I rise to add my voice to those who have already honoured the bravery of the survivors of sexual abuse and the profound impact their stories have had on our national history and shared future. In particular, I'd like to acknowledge my colleague Senator Siewert for being a powerful voice, through the royal commission, in listening and understanding and working with a journey of healing with the survivors of sexual abuse.

The royal commission took over four years and more than 2½ thousand referrals to reach its conclusion. The stories exposed the shocking, systematic abuse of children at the hands of powerful institutions, institutions like the church, schools, foster homes and orphanages, sporting clubs and many others. They are institutions that committed acts of unspeakable cruelty, where perpetrators were given safe harbour for the rape of young children and were allowed to continue this shocking behaviour with impunity.

I say to the survivors: I can't imagine your pain; the hurt; the tears of shame; or the kids alone at night, crying themselves to sleep, not believed, wondering what they did wrong to bring this on themselves. I say to you, the survivors: thank you for your bravery, for sharing your stories, because now many of these powerful institutions have had their day of reckoning. They were exposed throughout the royal commission of caring more about their own reputations and protecting their own colleagues than they cared for the children who were under their protection, with the resistance, the lack of remorse and the lack of empathy eventually giving way to a national call for action to stop this from ever happening again. They were only held to account because of your bravery, your courage—the courage of survivors—and your determination to see justice being done.

On behalf of the Greens, on behalf of all of my colleagues, I want to thank those of you who have reached into your traumatic pasts to share your stories. You have contributed to some of the changes already made, and you will be instrumental in ensuring reforms that are yet to come. I cannot imagine your pain or the courage needed to share your stories, but, please, take pride in the fact that you have truly helped to shape the course of history in this country. You've created this moment, a moment of national determination that nothing like what you have endured at the hands of the powerful will ever happen again to future generations. We salute your bravery. I'm certain that many survivors have still kept that trauma to themselves, to be shared only with closest loved ones, some taking this secret to the grave. For many of you, putting down your past on paper, speaking your lives into the commission's transcripts of evidence, would have been too much to bear. You must carry that pain around with you every day.

I had the great privilege of being in the Great Hall only a few weeks ago, and it was clear that that pain was still palpable. It was raw. It was on the surface. Many of you are being asked to trust another institution to deliver justice when you've been let down so badly, for so many years, by other powerful organisations. On behalf of my colleagues, I pledge to do everything we can in this chamber to stop this from ever happening again. There is no more solemn duty than to ensure that children can thrive in a caring, loving and supportive environment, free from even the slightest sign of physical and mental trauma. All children should be safe. We owe them nothing less.

This royal commission was also due to the bravery of others—people who were prepared to speak truth to power, who were prepared to sacrifice their own advancement to speak on behalf of the voiceless. Detective Chief Inspector Peter Fox, who was the whistleblower who saw it as his responsibility not to stay quiet and not to let this suffering continue, should be honoured. He chose to publicly expose the church's covering up of evidence about paedophile priests and how police investigations were methodically silenced. We thank him. It was Prime Minister Julia Gillard who responded to Mr Fox's evidence, using the powers that only executive governments have to launch a royal commission. It was a call that the Greens had made on a number of occasions, and we wholeheartedly endorsed this move by the former Prime Minister. We saw only a few weeks ago how grateful the many survivors were for Ms Gillard to be there in the room and to have allowed the course of history to change forever.

That is our duty: to care for people; to ensure that justice is done; to make right the wrongs of the past; to acknowledge that we can never undo the suffering, the pain, the trauma or the hurt but we can change the future that young children are born into. That is the test of whether this apology will have force, whether this apology is one that moves beyond an acknowledgement of the past and, indeed, allows us to change our future. Our solemn pledge is to do everything that we can do to make sure that these sins are never repeated.

Senator LINES (Western Australia—Deputy President and Chair of Committees) (13:37): I too rise today to offer my most sincere apology to the victims and survivors of institutional child sexual abuse. I thank former Prime Minister Julia Gillard for having the coverage to set up the royal commission and I thank Senator Cormann and Senator Wong for leading the apology to victims and survivors in this place today. I want to start quickly with my own story. My father was sent out here as a child migrant from England and he grew up at Fairbridge in Western Australia. Thankfully, my father was not a victim of child sexual abuse, but others at Fairbridge were: children that he knew and children that he loved. His brother was also sent out, and what they did suffer was hardship and abuse, but it was not sexual, and I think that's one of the great areas that we have to pursue into the future: that children in institutions were treated appallingly. They were beaten. They were put to work. They were just not treated as human beings, and my father was in that category.

I know firsthand what it feels like to have your family ripped apart. I've just recently met my cousin in the UK. I look like my grandmother. I didn't know that before. Of course, I never knew my paternal grandmother. I look like my cousins. I share the same name as them. All of this my father lost, and it was lost to me and my children. That is one of the legacies of children in institutions.

Of course, to then abuse children in the way that happened in our country is unbelievable. To have people in positions of trust that sexually abuse those children, that thought that those children were there for them to abuse and to sexually abuse—and we know that it ruined lives. We know it tore families apart, and what has happened in our institutions, in our schools and in our churches is absolutely unforgiveable. The best that I can do today is to stand here as one of the many senators and offer my apologies.

But I want to focus particularly on First Nations Australians, because it should not have taken that royal commission. In my own state of Western Australia, there's no doubt that First Nations people have been treated harshly and cruelly in the land that is their own. In Western Australia, the first royal commission was held in 1905. We knew then that children in institutions were being raped—we knew that. That inquiry was not about the sexual abuse of children; it was about the harsh treatment of natives, as they were called in those days. But, nevertheless, the abuse of children, the rape of children, the harsh treatment of children became a feature of that royal commission. Nothing changed. In fact, after 1905 we saw a harsher regime. AO Neville eventually became the protector of Aboriginal people in Australia, and we saw a regime that became much more harsh.

Another royal commission, the Moseley commission, in 1935, looked again at what was happening to First Nations people. Again, one of the consequences was that that royal commission heard about the sexual exploitation, the sexual abuse of Aboriginal children in care. We know, as the colonisers of this country, that we have had a history of murder, of taking children away—and it goes on. There were more reports. In 1997, we had the Bringing them home report. There are horrific stories in there.

Of course, there were many people, Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal, who were not able to tell their stories to the royal commission. I stand here today and apologise to those people, to those victims and to their families, to the many thousands who were not able to tell those stories.

There are many stories in the Bringing them home report. One of the institutions particularly close to me is Sister Kate's, which was an institution set up in the 1930s by a nun who took light-skinned children to, allegedly, give them a better life. I know that because my mother taught the children from Sister Kate's at Queens Park Primary School. Some of those children were sexually abused at Sister Kate's. This is unbelievable, but anyone could come and knock on the door and offer to take those children home for the weekend and home for the holidays, and many of those children were sexually abused. Sadly, I'm not sure if any of that got before the royal commission, but it is in the Bringing them home report. So it should not have taken a royal commission to get to where we are today.

I applaud the men who, in that tearful way, told their stories on television and who, over and over again, were just not believed. I would hope that, if we've learnt nothing else, we have learnt that when children tell us an injustice has been done to them that the first thing we should do is believe them, because the damage that has been done is there, and it will continue into the next generation and the generation after that.

From Western Australia's perspective, from 1905, when those first official reports were made, to where we stand today, we knew what was happening, at least to First Nations children. In the 1930s, we should have known what was happening in institutions. It took until Prime Minister Gillard had the courage to set up the royal commission for those people's stories to be told once again and for us to now stand in this place and say that we believe them.

I would hope, as we've heard other senators in this place say today, that this would never happen again. But it's on all of us to make sure that children who are in institutions—and Western Australia, sadly, is leading the way. We have many, many children in out-of-home care. Most of them are First Nations children. In fact, the Healing Foundation said just recently that, of the children whose stories were told at the royal commission, 14 per cent were First Nations children. This is unforgivable. We have to do better. If that takes laws and it takes dollars, if that takes investing in early childhood and investing in communities, then that is what has to happen—because we can never allow what the royal commission has uncovered to happen again. My apologies are on the Senate record.

Senator PRATT (Western Australia) (13:45): Today I will add a few words to this heartfelt apology being made by the Senate and by this parliament to victims of institutional child sex abuse in Australia. The sad truth is that people I care about deeply are among the victims of such heinous acts, acts that have life-long consequences. I want to acknowledge all of those who fought so bravely for the acknowledgement and recognition of this issue—for redress, for apology, for justice and, most importantly, to recognise that we need to listen to children and that we must have robust institutions and a society that never allows this to happen again.

The evidence before the royal commission exposed heinous crimes perpetuated against vulnerable children. And the evidence largely shows that it should have been seen for what it was at the time—that there were enough people who should have known at the time that something needed to be done. Many children did try and speak up about their abuse but were ignored. The reputations of adults and institutions were privileged over the vulnerable victims of crime. I've spent some time reading the narrative stories in the royal commission's report—and there are thousands of them. In many of those cases someone knew, or should have known, about the abuse that was happening. In other cases children had been intimidated and frightened into remaining quiet. That powerful people in institutions should privilege themselves over the charges in their care is in and of itself also a heinous crime. A failure to provide a protective environment, a failure to believe children, and a culture that diminished their rights and voices of children—environments like that must never be allowed to fester in our nation again.

There are very deeply shocking accounts for which our nation must hold itself properly accountable. The case studies and private sessions left absolutely no doubt that a great many people, thousands and thousands of Australians, were injured by being subjected to sexual and other forms of abuse while in institutions or in connection with institutions with responsibility. I read stories of child protection systems returning children to abusive families where convicted paedophiles resided. We heard stories of institutions where systemic abuse occurred. The pages of the royal commission's report and, most importantly, the narratives and personal stories reveal the history of people who had their childhoods utterly shattered. Their childhoods were taken from them and their trust in people was broken and damaged. I really encourage people to look at the private sessions that have been written up so that you can listen not to this parliament but to the voices of those who have been missing in this debate for too long. From the evidence presented to the royal commission, their injuries, both physical and psychological, have been severe and lifelong and play out in a great many ways in terms of people's personal relationships, their employment, their children and their involvement in the criminal justice system. The impact of these crimes is lifelong.

It was also clear, as I said before, that in a great many cases the abuse was known about and not stopped or prevented and perpetrators were not held to account. I'm going to share one of those stories with the chamber today. Kaden was made a ward of the state when he was three. He spent time in a number of children's homes and juvenile justice centres in New South Wales in the 1980s. He was physically and sexually abused in at least three of those institutions. They were, according to Kaden, 'a cesspit for paedophiles—one big paedophile ring'. As well as the abuse he experienced at the hands of at least 15 to 20 workers at the institutions, Kaden told the commissioner that the boys were beaten and restrained excessively. He said:

I've seen kids get their arms broken and their shoulders popped out ... it was horrible.

To escape the abuse at one such institution, Kaden began running away to Kings Cross. He said:

I've been a heroin addict since I was 10, and started shooting up at the age of 10 and you know, suppressed the things that happened to me. I never wanted to talk about it. When I was stoned, I could deal with it. When I weren't stoned, it was just, yeah, it played on my mind.

This young man grew up to become very violent. He said:

I had a lot of anger in me ... I was very violent drunk, so I stopped drinking ... I believe if things like that never happened to me, I ... probably wouldn't be in jail. Most of my crime is violent assault ... It stuffed me up, me childhood, basically. I've been in and out of institutions all me life. I'm starting to break the cycle now.

He's currently on methadone, and he said:

I want to try to get off that as well and live a normal life ... but one step at a time.

One reason Kaden chose to start speaking up about his abuse a couple of years ago was that, as he said:

I don't cry ... My people, my family, they think I'm heartless, and they don't understand, like the effects that it had on me as a child, because I don't speak about what happened to me, and they've only known me to be violent and they don't know why.

As well as his issues with anger, Kaden finds his relationships with other men difficult. He said:

I can't be comfortable with men ... My uncles and my real father, they can't show no affection towards me. Like if they go to touch me, I pull away from them ... I told [my father] things had happened to me as a child and he tried to comfort me and I pushed him ... 'You can't touch me, Dad.'

Kaden received copies of his records with the help of the Legal Aid service. He said:

There was a lot of stuff in there that just blew me away. There were things in there that I didn't even know ... that helped me, with a bit of closure and that. But there was a lot of stuff that was upsetting ... I was placed in a paedophile ring and they knew about it, but there was nothing done.

Kaden told the commissioner that there are reports in his file about him being sexually assaulted at two of the institutions. He said:

It's written. It's actually written there in my documents—

but nothing was done about it. He said:

I come out with it, I said. 'He's touching kids,' you know, and I was all hushed up ... and sent to another joint ... They made out I was being violent towards the other kids and got me sent to [another institution]. A lot of shit got covered up.

When a female worker at one of the institutions tried to help, 'she got bullied and sacked from there because she wanted to know what was going on and she tried to come out with it'.

Kaden chose to come forward to the royal commission. He said:

If I can stop one kid being touched, it's better than nothing. At the end of the day ... something's got to be done about the institutions ... I honestly believe that ... even myself, I was being bounced between [those institutions] ... basically, I was just being passed around, you know.

Kaden told the commissioner:

I'm still here to talk about it, so that's the main thing. There's a lot of people that I was in the institutions with that are not alive no more, you know, take their own lives or OD'd or whatever the case may be, but I'm still here to talk about it, so that's the main thing.

There are thousands of these stories on the royal commission's website, and I encourage members of this place and the community to take stock of what has truly happened in our nation and the blind eye that we turned to the abuse of our nation's young people. If this place, if this chamber, has any purpose at all it should be to make sure that we listen to people who have been forgotten in our nation—to listen and act to ensure effective redress and, most importantly, to protect children in our nation from now on and always. I know abuse still happens in our society. It happens in families. It happens in institutions. We can't pretend that grand statements in this chamber will prevent that overnight, but we can and must do more.

We have been too slow in picking up and adopting the recommendations of the royal commission. It has taken, frankly, too long to see many of those recommendations implemented. I have paid close attention to those recommendations, and they did not make their recommendations lightly. The evidence from victims of this abuse give a clear mandate to the recommendations of the royal commission. They should be implemented faithfully, and the task for all of us now in this parliament is to follow, faithfully, the recommendations that have been made by the commission to protect our nation's children. The commission got its job done very efficiently, in a timely manner, but it is of great concern to me that the time line for a great many of the recommendations has already gone a long way beyond what the royal commission recommended they should be. If there is one message I have for the chamber today it is that we have been too slow not only over the great vast history of this abuse but also in responding to the need of making sure this never happens again.

Revealed in the pages of the royal commission's final report is a history of the betrayal and violations of the hearts, bodies and wellbeing of thousands of fellow Australians, Australians who were children at the time of this abuse. It should be unimaginable that our institutions or individuals could have participated in, perpetuated, tolerated, covered up and condoned every aspect of this abuse. We need to face up as a nation to exactly what has happened, to provide meaningful redress and to say sorry as we do in this place today and to mean it. It is critical that we take the human rights of children in Australia seriously and uphold them. We must listen to the voices of children who have been so much missing from this debate.

Senator KITCHING (Victoria) (13:58): In rising to speak on the motion moved by Senator Cormann, the apology to victims and survivors of institutional child sexual abuse, I would like to acknowledge the contributions made by those who have already spoken: the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, Senator Cormann, Senator Wong, and members and senators from all parties and the crossbench. There are times when our parliament needs to rise above party divisions, and this is certainly one of them. I recognise the sincerity of the emotions experienced and expressed by all of the speakers.

I want to acknowledge the leadership shown by former Prime Minister Julia Gillard when she announced the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse in November 2012. It will be, perhaps, her finest legacy. As she said at that time, too many children have suffered child abuse but have also seen other adults let them down. They've not only had their trust betrayed by the abuser but other adults who could have acted to assist them have failed to do so. There have been too many revelations of adults who have averted their eyes from this evil. Julia Gillard was determined that Australia could no longer avert its eyes—

The PRESIDENT: Order! Senator Kitching, you'll be in continuation when debate on the matter is resumed.

Senator McKENZIE (Victoria—Deputy Leader of The Nationals and Minister for Regional Services, Sport, Local Government and Decentralisation) (15:04): In one of my answers to Senator McAllister's question, I think I said $300 million. It was $300,000. I'd like to correct the record.

Senator McALLISTER (New South Wales—Deputy Opposition Whip in the Senate) (15:05): I move:

That the Senate take note of the answers given by the Minister for Finance and the Public Service (Senator Cormann) to questions without notice asked by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Senator Wong) and Senators Collins and Farrell today relating to the Prime Minister (Mr Morrison).

In the late noughties, Tourism Australia's 'Where the bloody hell are you?' campaign was in full flight. It may not have brought many new tourists to our country, but it did bring Lara Bingle, now Worthington, onto screens and social pages across Australia. But there was another career that rose from the spectacular marketing failure, and that was the career of the then managing director of Tourism Australia, Mr Scott Morrison. It would be a few years, of course, before Mr Morrison would rise to be the PM. He would have to win preselection first. For those who have forgotten, in 2007, it was actually Michael Towke who was preselected for the safe Liberal seat of Cook. That preselection contest attracted a large array of candidates, including Paul Fletcher and Mr Scott Morrison. Mr Towke easily won the preselection. He beat Mr Morrison 82 votes to eight. But, in the weeks that followed the preselection, a number of news articles questioned the legitimacy of this preselection, which ultimately saw him disendorsed. This led to Mr Morrison being preselected, and Mr Towke commenced defamation proceedings and obtained a substantial settlement. But, by that time, of course, from a political perspective, the damage was done. Mr Morrison went on to be a minister and a shadow minister before emerging from the chaos of this year as Prime Minister. An expose in this weekend's Saturday Paper has brought the conduct of Mr Morrison at Tourism Australia back into question. Why, after a decade, should Australians care? Because the events, as detailed in that expose and in the contemporaneous Auditor-General's report, raise serious questions about competence, about governance and about probity. They are raised in relation to a man that no single Australian knew could be the Prime Minister when they voted in the election in 2016.

Prime Minister Morrison has steadfastly refused to answer the question of why he is the leader instead of former Prime Minister Turnbull. But, in the absence of any explanation, voters are entitled to turn to his past to try and understand who he really is and what he brings to the job. There are serious questions of competence raised by the events, because, all the indications in the material that is available to us are that Mr Morrison struggled to perform. In answering these questions, Senator Cormann tried to point to performance as a reason for Mr Morrison's ascendancy. But, if we look back, Michelle Grattan reported at the time: 'Sources close to Tourism Australia board told the Herald it was a unanimous decision to force Mr Morrison out. There was no dissent whatsoever. Nobody was happy. We wish there had been a better outcome, but the board was absolutely unanimous.' The Australian, likewise, reported the relevant minister as saying: 'We've moved on it. It was without question the right decision by the board.' That's what Ms Bailey said of Mr Morrison's departure. In The Australian, they went on to report, 'She said she was seeking a replacement for Mr Morrison who would be more of a team player, capable of working closely with state bodies, industry and the government.' Is this the man that the Liberals want as Prime Minister—someone who couldn't work with state bodies, industry and government?

There are also serious questions about governance and probity. The Auditor-General's report suggests there were serial irregularities in the way that contracts were awarded by Tourism Australia. For instance, the Auditor-General found that while Prime Minister Morrison was its managing director, Tourism Australia requested that tenderers commence work on contracts worth $184 million before contracts were even executed and that Tourism Australia's risk mitigation was ineffective. These questions around competence, probity and governance are serious questions and they require answers from the government.

Senator DUNIAM (Tasmania) (15:10): Normally, it's a pleasure to join the take note debate after question time, but more and more I become disillusioned when we get to this part of the day and focus on things that I don't think the Australian people are too terribly interested in.

Question time came after two weeks out of this place—two weeks where all of us should have been out and talking to the people who we represent in this place; the people who elect us. They are people who have concerns and who are struggling to pay their power bills. They are people who want to make sure that their kids have jobs in the communities they live in. I'm sure they would have been communicating to Labor senators who asked questions in this question time about the issues which matter to them. I'm not sure how many Australians sat there and said: 'Do you know what, Senator X, Senator Y and Senator Z? Why don't you go down to Canberra and ask some questions about the Prime Minister from some report by the ANAO from 10 years ago? Go down there and see what you can find out about it. Why don't you go and play the man, not the ball?' Those opposite adopt the usual tactic that they seem to employ more and more as they run out of ideas and as they run out of steam in the lead-up to the next federal election: 'Why don't you go and besmirch someone's character by dredging things up?'

Clearly, as the Leader of the Government in the Senate said in answer to questions on this matter, the Labor dirt unit was working overtime for the last two weeks—not coming up with policy ideas and not thinking about the best ways to combat the next election but just digging deeper and deeper, searching for any skerrick of information that might yield a bit of what they believe is dirt. That is rather than focusing on the issues that actually matter to the Australian people—Australian mums and dads and Australian families.

As was stated, this ANAO report is a decade old. And, as was stated, it's one that was undertaken when we had a Labor government in this place—the Rudd government. But I think the answers given by Senator Cormann in response to those questions around this ridiculous character besmirching that has gone on by Labor today points to a very strong contrast between the Australian Labor Party and the plan they have—or don't, more to the point, given the nature of the questions today—and the record we can point to; the priorities for us. The questions that coalition senators asked of ministers today were around jobs, economic activity and how to look after regional Australians when it comes to matters like telecommunications and regional health. Those things are important. What the Labor senators asked about, and what we're doing the take note about today, is not an issue that Australians are concerned about. This is exactly why they get tired of us here in Canberra, because it is all insider, Canberra-bubble material. It isn't relevant to the kitchen table discussions, as I'm sure my good friend and colleague Senator Watt would agree.

But one thing which has been omitted from all of the discussion around the reports at the time was the comments that were made by the then chair of the board of Tourism Australia, Mr Fischer. He heaped praise on the Prime Minister when he was leaving that role. He said that he did a great job. It's a tough job and there was a time of transformation. The industry backed him in as well, saying that he did a fantastic job in terms of how the board should be structured. Those things have been omitted from the questions today. Rather than focus on the facts of the matter, they've hung things out there—suggestions and loaded language in these questions—to try to cast the worst light possible on the Prime Minister. They've been trying to sling mud, which is, again, something that Australians don't want to see here. People expect more of us; they want us to come in here and have a proper debate about issues that matter, like reducing hospital waiting lists—and we do have the MPI a little later on today, and I'm looking forward to contributing to that.

Of course, there was the matter of food relief, which Senator McAllister asked about. I was surprised that she moved the motion to take note of answers that didn't relate to that matter but on issues, as I said before, which are not important. As has been stated in the answers provided, this group of people, the Australian Labor Party, is looking backward. It is looking 10 years into the past to dig up as much dirt as possible. It is not looking to the future. It doesn't have the answers and it certainly doesn't have the plan. We need to expect more from those who aspire to be in government than what they're delivering. (Time expired)

Senator KITCHING (Victoria) (15:15): I rise to take note of the answers given, or rather not given, by Senator Cormann to questions by senators on this side asked in relation to the fact the current Prime Minister, Mr Morrison, was unceremoniously sacked as managing director of Tourism Australia in 2006. Senator Cormann cannot claim he had no notice of these questions. He must have known, following the extensive reporting of this matter over the weekend, that there would be questions on this matter in the Senate today, yet he deliberately chose not to inform himself of the facts. This immediately raises the question: what is Senator Cormann afraid of? Why does he feel the need to dodge and wibble-wobble when he is asked about this matter?

We know Senator Cormann's home branch of the Liberal Party in Western Australia is a branch that I'm sure is close to your heart, Madam Deputy President, since you can observe its travails up close and personal on our great western coast. What's come to light over the weekend is that the Liberal Party has been asking children to sign extraordinary talent release forms that seek to ban people from criticising or satirising the party in public or in private for five years. These North Korean style forms also seek to ban signatories from associating with other political parties. The Western Australian Liberal Party would make Kim Jong Un proud. The question for today— and perhaps this will help Senator Cormann—seems to be: where the bloody hell are you? If you look at Sean Kelly's piece in The Monthly—he does a more metaphorical take on this—you will see the answer is, 'Looking for Scott Morrison.' And, I have to tell you, he is a pretty difficult man to find. Is he on the bus—the SloMo express? No, he is on a VIP. Is he making a video for Twitter? No, he is sculling a beer. All the while, he is stealing food from the poor, cutting funding for Foodbank. Not since 'Thatcher, Thatcher the milk snatcher' have we seen this level of villainy—from 'Scott no heart, Scott no clue and Scott no decency'. Margaret Thatcher, two decades later, still regrets snatching milk from schoolchildren. The Prime Minister is the moral equivalent of the person taking coins from the blanket of the homeless person in the city streets. How does he sleep at night?

Let's go back to his wonderful time as the CEO of Tourism Australia. There seem to have been some personality difficulties between Mr Morrison and the Minister for Tourism, rather surprising perhaps given they were both from the Liberal Party, but Mr Morrison's resistance to the plan that Ms Bailey planned to put in place is a key reason behind his messy exit. But there is more. Morrison was 'not a team player'. They're not my words; they're actually Ms Bailey's words. Ms Bailey said of Mr Morrison's departure, 'We've moved on. It was without question the right decision by the board.' She said she was seeking a replacement for Mr Morrison who would be 'more of a team player' capable of working closely with state bodies, industry and the government. Of course, we have seen in recent months that Mr Morrison, when he gave that fatal hug of death to the then Prime Minister, Mr Turnbull, still isn't much of a team player.

In The Australian on 7 September 2006, there was an article around the unanimous board decision to dismiss Mr Morrison. Referring to Ms Bailey, it said:

She said she did not dismiss Mr Morrison—it had been the unanimous decision of the board, which felt he had to go because it had lost confidence in him and could not work with him.

Ms Bailey told the committee the issue with Mr Morrison was not one of personality but—

wait for it—

performance.

The Sydney Morning Herald on 16 August 2006 said:

Ms Bailey's office declined to comment last night but the strengthening of Tourism Australia is expected to be welcomed by the travel industry after the dramatic departure of its managing director, Scott Morrison, following a unanimous decision by the board to remove him … Sources close to the Tourism Australia board told the Herald it was a unanimous decision to force Mr Morrison out. "There was no dissent whatsoever. Nobody was happy and we wished there had been a better outcome, but the board was absolutely unanimous."

There is a line between someone who acts like that and the way we have seen the Prime Minister behave recently. (Time expired)

Senator WILLIAMS (New South Wales—Nationals Whip in the Senate) (15:20): I think this is grubby politics. I really do. Here we are, Senator Kitching quoting from The Australian newspaper in 2006—12 years ago. Imagine if I picked out a quote from the former Prime Minister Mr Bob Hawke that he was on the grog one night as a young fella.

An opposition senator interjecting—

Senator WILLIAMS: Have you finished?

Senator Wong interjecting—

Senator WILLIAMS: What did I do to Gillard? I didn't do anything, quoting you, Senator Wong. What did your side do to Prime Minister Gillard? That's the question you should be asking, Senator Wong. You're the ones that sacked her. As I said, we are going back to 2006 newspaper quotes. I'm not going to pick up a paper and look for a quote on Bob Hawke when he was on the grog some time as a university student. Good luck to him. I probably did the same myself except I didn't spend a long time at university. This is grubby politics. The now Prime Minister was a private citizen working before he joined politics. We have even seen attacks on his preselection. I could talk about a lot of preselections in here of those opposite, where the knives come out, the deals are done, and the factions get together and come to some sort of arrangement. We know all about them. We could go back to 2013 and the Senate positions on the paper, couldn't we, Senator Wong? Things like that.

This is just grubby politics. I'm not going to go back into the past. It's not for me to judge the Prime Minister, Mr Morrison, or former leaders in this country. Question time is just a farce of throwing hand grenades. Probably the quote of question time today was Senator Cameron when he said, 'Those in the bush have never had it so good.' I find that an amazing interjection, highlighted by Senator O'Sullivan. Just yesterday I came in from Parkes in the Central West. I was talking to my friends Barry and Cheryl Green and Bull Green and his wife Therese. They're carting water, filling the dams up on their properties for sheep water because they don't have underground water in that region. And Senator Cameron says during question time, 'The bush has never had it so good.' That is an amazing statement—so out of touch. It just goes to prove that those opposite spend little time in the bush, seeing the drought, the effect on the people, the animals, the mental effect on humans. Sadly some have taken their own lives due to the stress of this drought. We find in question time comments that the bush has never seen it so good. It's simply amazing.

We were talking about the past of the Prime Minister, Mr Morrison, and how those opposite are so squeaky clean with the past. There are things like the laws on superannuation. We can't get changes to them. We have Senator McAllister saying what happened in the preselection of Mr Morrison. Isn't that the business of the Liberal Party, just like the Labor Party does preselection? It's their business how they work their factions and agreements out and so on.

As far as Mr Morrison goes and his job at Tourism Australia, I was happy to speak with the former Deputy Prime Minister, Tim Fischer, a few weeks ago at Sydney Airport. He is a good man. He is having a few battles of his own personally. I wish him well with those struggles he's having now with some health issues. He has been a great leader of the National Party and a great Deputy Prime Minister. He is a very decent and honest man. He backed Scott Morrison in that position as managing director, and so did the industry. Here we are today playing politics again in question time and taking note, really to achieve nothing but to try and smear the Prime Minister, who is out there amongst the people working hard, communicating with them. Then we get the thing about the food grants and support; there has been no cut in that. There's an extra $4.5 million, but that wasn't discussed, of course—just one political point taken about that. Really, what is question time about? What is taking note about? It's about political points and simply wasting time.

Senator CHISHOLM (Queensland) (15:25): I wanted to talk about why this issue is important. Unlike Senator Williams over there, I can't just dismiss this because it was a period of time ago. This is an important and substantial story. This is the last substantial job that the current Prime Minister did before he entered parliament, so it's absolutely legitimate that he is held accountable for the role that he played in that.

The other aspect of this is that his appointment to that job was highly political. The last job he did before he was appointed as the Managing Director of Tourism Australia was State Director of the New South Wales Liberal Party. He had that role when they won re-election in 2004, and former Prime Minister Howard is on the record saying how grateful he was for the role that the current Prime Minister played during that 2004 campaign.

How was he appointed to be the Managing Director of Tourism Australia? The key recruitment agency that conducted the search was Korn Ferry. On this side of the chamber, we know that when the conservatives, when the LNP, want to get their preferred outcome in terms of recruitment, that's who they go to. We saw that evidence during Senate estimates when we were talking about the recent troubles at the ABC. And who have the government appointed to head the recruitment for the new board positions? None other than Korn Ferry. So we know that they have form. When they want their preferred outcome, this is who they go to.

These issues are substantial, they are important, and it is important that the current Prime Minister answer the questions that have been raised as part of the reporting. These aren't allegations by the Labor Party. This is as a result of a National Audit Office report. They are substantial allegations and they were reached independently of us as the opposition and, indeed, independently of the Public Service. They also go to the judgement of the Prime Minister, his record before he got into parliament and his capacity. It also goes to transparency, because taxpayer funds were involved in that organisation that he was responsible for. What payout did he receive that had confidentiality agreements around it? This is public money at the end of the day we're talking about.

So there are a number of aspects of this that go to his record now and also his record previously. How can we not use this to question his judgement as a result? In the short time he has been Prime Minister we have had the opportunity on numerous occasions to question his judgement. We saw that in the week before the Wentworth by-election when there was a series of rolling blunders by this Prime Minister, including what was nothing short of a diplomatic incident with regard to the relationship with Indonesia. In the last week of the by-election campaign, the Prime Minister floated the idea of moving the embassy in Israel, which put at risk the signing of a free trade agreement with our important neighbours in Indonesia.

It is, therefore, easy for us to conclude that we need to look at his decision-making, and to look at, when the current Prime Minister has been in positions of authority, how he has used that. When you look at his role at Tourism Australia, it was a very short-lived affair. It was a unanimous board decision—this is the same board that appointed him to that role 18 months earlier—to remove him, and this included a former National Party deputy leader as part of that, and there was a really obvious falling-out relationship with the minister at the time. The length of time he was in that role also leads us to conclude that there were judgement issues at play.

I think when you look at the LNP, they obviously—and we saw this in question time today—have problems detailing and explaining dismissals. We saw that with the former Prime Minister. They still can't tell us why Prime Minister Turnbull was dismissed, and it seems like we can't find out why the current Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, was dismissed from Tourism Australia. So there are some fundamental issues that need to be highlighted within the public domain.

In question time today, the Senate leader, Senator Cormann, didn't take that opportunity to explain these decisions. So we will absolutely continue to highlight why it is so important for us to question the government and question the Prime Minister on this role at Tourism Australia and get to the bottom of why these decisions were made. We know he went from being the New South Wales state Liberal director straight to the position of managing director of Tourism Australia and then 18 months later he was out of that role. The Australian people deserve answers and the ANAO report is a good place for us to start. (Time expired)

Question agreed to.

Senator FARUQI (New South Wales) (15:33): I move:

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Regional Services, Sport, Local Government and Decentralisation (Senator McKenzie) to a question without notice asked by Senator Faruqi today relating to the Choice and Affordability Fund for school funding.

We have seen from Minister McKenzie's performance in question time today and from the stonewalling at budget estimates that the so-called 'choice and affordability fund' is exactly what we thought it would be when it was first announced. This is a bipartisan political fix for private schools that comes at the direct expense of public schools, public school students and teachers, which are grossly underfunded and most in need. This whole program is a farce. There are no rules and no criteria, and the department seems to have no idea how the enormous amount of $1.2 billion for the private school slush fund was arrived at. There are no complex mathematical formulas behind this number. There's only one formula the Liberal-National government is interested in, and that's how much money to throw at the private school sector to keep it quiet.

Billions going to Catholic and independent schools is billions not going to public schools, and it is public school teachers and students who will continue to be neglected. Ninety-three per cent of teachers dip into their own pocket to buy stationery and classroom equipment, and nearly half buy library resources and textbooks. It means public school students continue to sweat it out in demountable classrooms with no air conditioning, while private schools build orchestra pits and their third and fourth swimming pools. This government and the private schools have some things in common, and one of those things is that they both fear transparency. Dr Adrian Piccoli, former New South Wales education minister and the director of the Gonski Institute for Education at the University of New South Wales, has made very clear what happens when you allow systems like the Catholic education system to determine where to put public money, instead of the government. He pointed out that the Catholic sector often allocate more money to their wealthy schools than their schools in disadvantaged areas. He gives the example of schools in regional Queanbeyan receiving $2,000 less per student than Catholic students on the wealthy North Shore. St Joseph's in Condobolin, whose student population is 30 per cent Indigenous, gets $4,000 less per student than St Michael's in Sydney's wealthy inner west.

This madness has to stop. These special deals have to stop. The Greens are the only party that will stand up for public schools and against special deals for private schools. Both the Labor and Liberal parties continue to support billions going to already overfunded private schools. Parents of public school children have the right to be angry that the government managed to find $4.6 billion behind the couch and there is not a dollar—not even a single cent extra—for public schools. This is a national disgrace. It's time for the government to admit that this is just hush money for private schools and to put this money into the public system, where it's clearly most needed.

Question agreed to.

Senator HANSON (Queensland) (15:37): I move:

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Small and Family Business, Skills and Vocational Education (Senator Cash) to a question without notice asked by Senator Hanson today relating to immigration and national security.

The answer that was given by Minister Cash with regard to my question about refugees coming from African and Middle Eastern countries who have been convicted of terrorist and terrorist-related offences was the weakest and most pathetic answer that the Australian people could have been given. Last week we saw another terrorist attack on the streets of Melbourne, as we saw with Man Monis, a former refugee. All I asked was: would the government consider not allowing people from the countries where these terrorists are coming from into Australia? That's what the Australian people want. People want security. I'm sick and tired of the rhetoric on this floor of parliament from both major political parties. They say they're worried about national security in Australia, yet they do nothing about it. They give the answer that they have a non-discriminatory immigration policy. The fact is that the Sudanese have the highest crime rate and highest representation in our prisons, but we have non-discriminatory entry into Australia. Well, it's not good enough as far as the Australian people are concerned. They're in fear—fear to walk our streets, fear to go on public transport, fear for their loved ones. And I think it's an absolute disgrace that this parliament is not prepared to stand up and say it how it is. It was a disgraceful answer from Minister Cash with regard to this question of mine, and people deserve better.

Question agreed to.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT (15:39): It is with deep regret that I inform the Senate of the death, on 6 November 2018, of Edward Carrington (Ted) Mack, a member of the House of Representatives for the division of North Sydney, New South Wales, from 1990 to 1996.

Senator WATERS (Queensland) (15:44): I move:

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

(i) disclosure of donations made to political parties is only made public by the Australian Electoral Commission once a year, on 1 February, for the preceding financial year,

(ii) there is up to an 18 month delay between when a donation is made and when it is publicly disclosed, and at minimum a 7 month delay,

(iii) since 2012, the major parties have received approximately $100 million in donations from corporate entities,

(iv) the voters in the electorates of Braddon, Fremantle, Longman, Mayo and Perth will have to wait until 1 February 2020, some 18 months after the by-election date, before they know who funded those campaigns,

(v) the voters in the electorate of Wentworth will have to wait almost 16 months before they know who funded political parties' by-election campaigns, and

(vi) under current legislation for federal elections, voters go to the ballot box without any information about how their local candidates and political parties have funded their campaigns – the identity of donors or amounts donated; and

(b) calls on the Federal Government to require all donations of $1000 and above to be disclosed in close to real-time on an easy-to-search public website, to ensure voters have access to information about who is bank-rolling political campaigns before they vote.

Senator CHISHOLM (Queensland) (15:44): I seek leave to make a short statement.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.

Senator CHISHOLM: The opposition will be supporting this motion. It has been Labor's long-held policy that the federal disclosure threshold be lowered. It was a Labor government that originally lowered the disclosure threshold to allow Australians to see who was funding election campaigns. It was the coalition who reversed it, reducing transparency and seeing the threshold blow out to its current figure of $13,800. Labor believes in transparency throughout our political system and is the only party who can form government and work with the Australian Electoral Commission to deliver it.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The question is that business of the Senate notice of motion 1169 standing in the name of Senator Waters be agreed to.

Senator DI NATALE (Victoria—Leader of the Australian Greens) (15:51): I, and also on behalf of Senator Watt, move:

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

   (i) members of the community have expressed significant concerns about the inadequate privacy and security provisions currently present in the My Health Records Amendment (Strengthening Privacy) Bill 2018 (the bill),

   (ii) senators will not have an opportunity to debate the bill until the week beginning 12 November 2018,

   (iii) the opt-out period for the My Health Record is currently scheduled to end in the same week, on 15 November 2018, and

   (iv) the Federal Government has extended the opt-out period once before, supposedly to allow passage of the bill;

(b) expresses disappointment that the Federal Government has chosen to not follow through on their commitment to the Australian people to strengthen the legislation which governs the My Health Record, meaning that any choices that the Australian people make about opting out will not be sufficiently informed; and

(c) calls on the Federal Government to extend or suspend the opt-out period until the legislation and any amendments are passed, outstanding privacy and security concerns are addressed, and public confidence in this important reform is restored.

Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Assistant Minister for International Development and the Pacific) (15:52): I seek leave to make a short statement.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.

Senator RUSTON: On 7 November Minister Hunt announced that the government will introduce further legislative amendments to ensure the safety and privacy of health information in the My Health Record system, including provisions to protect people against domestic violence and tougher penalties for those who misuse the system. These will be voted upon in the Senate this week. Those who wish to delete their records after the 15 November opt-out date can do so at any time throughout their lives and their record will be deleted forever. The legislation to enable My Health Record to become an opt-out system passed the parliament unanimously in 2015.

Senator DI NATALE (Victoria—Leader of the Australian Greens) (15:53): I seek leave to make a short statement.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.

Senator DI NATALE: The Greens initiated a Senate inquiry into the My Health Record because we listened to the concerns not just of the medical community, the IT community and privacy advocates but of the Australian community. They made it very clear that they hold huge concerns about the rollout of the My Health Record. Now is the appropriate time to press pause and to extend the opt-out period for a further 12 months. If we proceed as is planned, every single Australian will have a record created for them on the 15th of this month, in a few days time. We're going to press ahead with that when significant changes are yet to be made to the legislation that has already been identified as creating enormous concerns around people's privacy. The government flagged that they are going to introduce amendments. Those amendments have not yet passed and yet every Australian will have a record created for them in several days time.

Senator WATT ( Queensland ) ( 15:54 ): I seek leave to make a short statement.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.

Senator WATT: I just want to put on the record that this also comes out of a Labor initiated inquiry and this is a co-sponsored motion by the Labor Party. Labor have, from the very beginning, indicated our concern that the opt-out period is not long enough to deal with the many concerns that members of the public have. We put forward amendments in our inquiry report, which the government has fortunately and finally listened to, but it is still our view that the opt-out period needs to be extended and that's why we are supporting this motion.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The question is that general business notice of motion No. 1167 standing in the names of Senators Di Natale and Watt be agreed to.

Senator O'SULLIVAN (Queensland) (15:58): I move:

That the Senate—

(a) acknowledges that:

(i) the internationally-recognised Day of the Unborn Child is observed on 25 March as 'a positive option in favour of life and the spread of a culture for life to guarantee respect for human dignity in every situation',

(ii) religious observers attending Day of the Unborn Child services are continuously disrupted and harassed at annual protest rallies organised by pro-abortion groups, such as the University of Sydney Women's Collective, the University of New South Wales Women's Collective and Labour for Choice,

(iii) these protest rallies feature speakers who insult church-goers and accuse the church of supporting violence against women, and

(iv) then Bishop of Broken Bay, Peter Comensoli, has advocated for exclusion zones around religious activities, stating "if they're (activists) determined to have a safety zone, why not a safety zone around any activities that could be personally intimidating for those involved"; and

(b) calls on all senators to:

(i) protect religious freedom in Australia,

(ii) note the hypocrisy of pro-abortion activists complaining about pro-life group activities near abortion clinics, while, at the same time, carrying out their own protest rallies against religious observances, and

(iii) support calls for pro-abortion activists to be banned from disrupting Day of the Unborn Child services across the nation.

Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Assistant Minister for International Development and the Pacific) (15:59): I seek leave to make a short statement.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.

Senator RUSTON: As this motion involves a matter of conscience, in line with longstanding practice government senators are free to vote in accordance with their own conscience on matters relating to this motion.

Senator WATERS (Queensland) (15:59): I seek leave to make a short statement.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.

Senator WATERS: Senator O'Sullivan needs to get his hands and his rosaries off my ovaries and those of the 10,000 Queensland women who have an abortion every year, 10,000 women who have the right to make a decision about their own bodies without the opinion of Senator O'Sullivan getting in their way.

Senator O'Sullivan has never shared and will never share the experience of any of those women. He will never be faced with running a gauntlet of people calling him a murderer because he's made a decision about his own body. Do not stand there in judgement of women when you will never share their experiences and never understand their choices. A woman's body is her own and no man or anyone else in this building or anywhere else has any right to dictate what she does with it. You should be ashamed of yourself, seeking respect for a group of people trying to further oppress women and control their bodies.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Abetz on a point of order?

Senator Abetz: Reference to a person's religious beliefs in speeches in this chamber have been, quite rightly, called out as being inappropriate. I think that the reference to Senator O'Sullivan's religion in relation to the rosary is such a matter that should be, and deserves and needs to be, withdrawn.

Senator WATERS: On the point of order: if that's the case then the whole motion shouldn't be proceeded with.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: On the point of order, I do remind senators that it is not appropriate to refer to the religious beliefs of any senator in this place. I would ask you to withdraw the comments, Senator Waters, without repeating them.

Senator WATERS: Deputy President, is Senator O'Sullivan going to withdraw his motion?

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Waters, I am applying the standing orders. I've simply asked you to withdraw the comments you made in relation to religion. I ask that you do that.

Senator WATERS: I withdraw only the remark to Senator O'Sullivan's rosary. I would like the rest of the statement to remain on the record.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Waters! Please resume your seat. It has been the practice for senators not to repeat the offence; it just creates further division. I would remind you just to withdraw when you stand in future. Thank you.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS (Victoria—Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate) (16:01): I seek leave to make a short statement.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS: Without endorsing Senator Waters's comments, the opposition will not be supporting the motion—but for different reasons. Once again, we are debating a motion which is complex in nature and misplaced in this section of the daily program. The issue that Senator O'Sullivan raises in this motion is, by its nature, a very complex one and one which deserves substantive debate and not a quick vote of the Senate.

This motion is also a poor conflation of the issues of safe access zones and religious freedom and freedom of association in Australia. It's fortunate that the motion now corrects the one factual error contained in the original motion proposed in the chamber weeks ago. Part of this motion refers to the now Archbishop of Melbourne, Peter Comensoli, when he was the Bishop for Broken Bay. The motion still incorrectly refers to an organisation called Labor for Choice. I'm glad to see that Senator O'Sullivan did correct one of these errors, but it's unfortunate— (Time expired)

Senator HINCH (Victoria) (16:03): I seek leave to make a short statement.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.

Senator HINCH: I just want to put on the record that I support every single word that Senator Waters said today.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The question is that general business notice of motion No. 1116, standing in the name of Senator O'Sullivan, be agreed to.

Senator WATERS (Queensland) (16:10): I seek leave to amend general business notice of motion No. 1159 simply to add a date, relating to abortion law reform in Queensland, before asking that it be taken as a formal motion.

Leave granted.

Senator WATERS: I amend the motion in the terms circulated in the chamber and I ask that it be taken as formal.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Is there any objection to the motion being taken as formal?

Senator O'Sullivan interjecting—

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Okay. So we revert back to the original. Are you seeking a point of order, Senator O'Sullivan?

Senator O'Sullivan: I'm seeking a point of order to clarify the position.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Go ahead.

Senator O'Sullivan: I did not object to the amendment. That amendment was made. I object to the formality now of the amended motion.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Formality has been denied. Senator Waters, are you seeking the call?

Senator WATERS: I am. In lieu of suspending standing orders, I seek leave to make a short statement.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.

Senator WATERS: You may well be able to deny me leave to move this motion, Senator O'Sullivan, but you can no longer deny me or any woman the right to do what we choose with our bodies. Abortion is now legal in Queensland, after almost 120 years of it being a crime. This motion would simply have congratulated the hardworking advocates who championed for decades for women to have the right to make a decision about their own bodies. Senator O'Sullivan, taking the highly unusual step of denying me leave so that the Senate can't even consider this motion, typifies everything that's wrong with the abortion debate: men telling women what they can and can't do. Senator O'Sullivan is still trying to have the last say on abortion, but you lost that vote.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Waters, I do remind you to address your remarks—

Senator Waters: Through you, Deputy President.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Waters, please don't interrupt me when I'm speaking, and allow me to finish. I have asked you to direct your comments to the chair.

Senator WATERS: Thank you, Deputy President. Through you, Senator O'Sullivan's days of having a say over women's bodies are over.

Senator O'SULLIVAN (Queensland) (16:12): I seek leave to make a short statement.

Leave not granted.

Senator GRIFF (South Australia) (16:13): I move:

That the Senate—

(a) acknowledges that:

(i) 14 October to 20 October 2018, was National Carers Week,

(ii) Carers Australia values the work done by unpaid carers at an estimated $60 billion a year,

(iii) women make up the majority of carers—women represent 68% of primary carers for elderly people and those with a disability, and 55.5% of all carers, according to the ABS' Disability, Ageing and Carers survey,

(iv) the labour force participation rate for primary carers was 56% compared to non-carers at 80%, and 73% of males who were carers were employed compared with 60.8% of females,

(v) according to Carers' Australia's report, The Benefit of Carers to the Economy, about 4% of employees become carers each year, and the probability of a new carer leaving the workforce is 8% – about 26% of primary carers reduce their work hours after taking on a caring role,

(vi) the 2017 Hilda survey showed Australian women retire with just over half the amount of superannuation as men, or an average of $230,907, and one in three women retire with no superannuation at all,

(vii) one of the reasons women retire with less superannuation is because of the extended periods of time they spend out of the workforce to care for children or elderly parents – as a result of their lower retirement savings, they are more likely to rely on the aged pension, and

(viii) in 2016, the report of the Economics References Committee on the gender retirement income gap, recommended that superannuation be paid on the Commonwealth Paid Parental Leave Scheme; and

(b) calls on the Federal Government to:

(i) model the costs and benefits of providing the superannuation guarantee to carers on the Carer Payment or other carer-related benefits, including the Commonwealth Paid Parental Leave Scheme, and

(ii) seriously consider providing the superannuation guarantee to carers on the Carer Payment or other benefit they are paid as a result of their caring responsibilities.

Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Assistant Minister for International Development and the Pacific) (16:13): I seek leave to make a short statement.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.

Senator RUSTON: More than $8 billion in social security payments to carers was provided in 2017-18. In recognition of the invaluable work carers perform, in the 2018-19 budget the government announced an additional $85.6 million over four years to fund new supports for carers through the new integrated carer support services model. This funding is in addition to the amount already spent on delivering carer support services, which was $169 million for 2017-18. The government has a suite of superannuation reforms currently before the Senate, which will boost retirement savings, including the retirement savings of women, by billions of dollars.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Senator Urquhart?

Senator Urquhart: I am seeking clarification. It was my understanding there was an amendment to this motion. Has that been amended?

Senator Griff: I believe you should have the amendment. It has appeared. It's incorporated in the Notice Paper.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: I have been advised by the Clerk that we are not sure the amendment has been circulated—I beg your pardon; I'm informed it has been incorporated into the Notice Paper. The question is that general business notice of motion No. 1164, standing in the name of Senator Griff, be agreed to.

Senator HANSON-YOUNG (South Australia) (16:21): I move:

That the Senate—

(a) notes that the Minister for the Environment, Ms Price, made offensive remarks to former President of Kiribati, Anote Tong;

(b) further notes that former President Tong has a long history of advocating on behalf of his people, his country and the Pacific, who will be first and worst affected by climate change; and

(c) calls on the Federal Government to apologise to former President Tong, commend him for his heroic actions on behalf of his people, and take seriously the threat of climate change in the Pacific region.

Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Assistant Minister for International Development and the Pacific) (16:21): I seek leave to make a short statement.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.

Senator RUSTON: Minister Price addressed this issue in question time during the previous sitting of this parliament. She spoke to past President Tong and she apologised. He thanked her for her call. Australia values its strong relationship with Pacific nations, including Kiribati.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The question is that general business notice of motion No. 1165, standing in the name of Senator Hanson-Young, be agreed to.

Senator FARUQI (New South Wales) (16:35): I, and also on behalf of Senator Hinch, move:

That the Senate—

(a) notes that:

(i) according to Racing Australia's latest annual report, more than 13 000 thoroughbred foals were born in 2017,

(ii) there is currently no lifetime tracking of horses once they leave the racing industry,

(iii) the community has an expectation that all animals used for racing are rehomed, but race horses are still ending up at knackeries, including being used for pet meat,

(iv) all registered Australian racehorses have a microchip inserted into their necks which would allow them to be tracked throughout their lifetime, and

(v) the RSPCA has called for a national tracing and registration system for all horses, starting with those involved in the racing industry; and

(b) calls on the Australian Government to work with the states and territories to establish a national tracing and registration system for race horses, including a requirement that all slaughterhouses and knackeries scan any horse that enters the premises and those results be sent to the Australian Government and Racing Australia to be published publically.

Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Assistant Minister for International Development and the Pacific) (16:35): I seek leave to make a short statement.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.

Senator RUSTON: This is a matter for the states and territories, and the Commonwealth has no jurisdiction in the area proposed.

Senator CHISHOLM (Queensland) (16:36): I seek leave to make a short statement.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.

Senator CHISHOLM: Labor opposes this motion because, while its intent is understandable, it is unnecessary. On 1 August 2016, Racing Australia introduced new rules relating to the traceability of horses, bringing both foals and owners under the Australian rules of racing for integrity and animal welfare purposes. These rules were amended in October 2016 to ensure stewards have access to studs and farms to monitor the health and welfare of horses. According to the chair's report in the annual report referenced in the motion, the new rules ensure the traceability and welfare of all thoroughbred horses from birth until rehoming.

Senator FARUQI (New South Wales) (16:36): I seek leave to make a short statement.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.

Senator FARUQI: A national horse register makes sense for animal welfare, for safety and for biosecurity. Animal advocates, safety advocates and the racing industry itself agree about the need for a centralised national register. We are just stuck on what model, who is included and how to pay. We definitely need national leadership, and I will continue to push for federal leadership in establishing a national register. Horses do not have lifetime tracking beyond the first movement.

I want to pay tribute to Juliana Waugh AM and Mark Waugh for their tireless advocacy on this issue since tragically losing their daughter, Sarah, in 2011 in a horse-riding accident. The national register is a sensible public policy. Together we can save lives, we can protect biosecurity and we can stop racing horses being discarded at knackeries when they're no longer profitable.

Question negatived.

Senator GEORGIOU (Western Australia) (16:38): Before I move the motion I wish to add the names of Senator Hanson and Senator Bernardi. I, and also on behalf of Senators Leyonhjelm, Hanson and Bernardi, move:

That the Senate—

(a) acknowledges that:

(i) smoking is the largest preventable cause of death in Australia,

(ii) successive Commonwealth Governments have used increased excise levels as the primary mechanism to deter smokers from maintaining their habit,

(iii) there is growing evidence that vaping has helped many smokers to quit, and

(iv) a growing number of countries, including the United Kingdom, Canada and New Zealand have already legalised vaping;

(b) notes that:

(i) a recent Australian Institute of Health and Welfare survey found that, despite the Government's policy to reduce smoking rates, the national smoking rate had, in fact, not declined in the period 2013-16,

(ii) last month, the CSIRO released a study confirming e-cigarettes assisted smokers in quitting,

(iii) a poll conducted by the Australian Retailers Association showed 61% of Australians support the legalisation of vaping and e-cigarettes, and

(iv) despite the above, under current Australian law, it is illegal to purchase, possess or use liquid nicotine for vaping without a prescription from a registered Australian medical practitioner; and

(c) calls on the Federal Government to immediately introduce legislation to legalise the sale, possession and use of liquid nicotine without restriction.

Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Assistant Minister for International Development and the Pacific) (16:38): I seek leave to make a short statement.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: Leave is granted for one minute.

Senator RUSTON: E-cigarette regulation is a shared responsibility between the Commonwealth and the state and territory governments. The current regulatory framework draws on existing legislation and regulations that may apply to tobacco products, therapeutic goods, poisons and consumer goods. The government takes an evidence based approach to these matters and will be commissioning some additional research to help inform policymaking in this area.

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: The question is that general business notice of motion No. 1160, moved by Senator Georgiou, be agreed to.

Senator DI NATALE (Victoria—Leader of the Australian Greens) (16:42): I seek leave to make a very short statement on that previous motion.

Leave not granted.

Senator DI NATALE: Who denied leave?

The DEPUTY PRESIDENT: A Labor senator.

Senator DI NATALE: I'm seeking leave to make a short statement on the motion that we just voted against.

Leave not granted.

Senator ANNING (Queensland) (16:43): I ask that general business notice of motion No. 1162, standing in my name for today, relating to immigration policy, be taken as a formal motion.