Senator FARRELL (South Australia) (10:03): I first introduced this bill more than a year ago—in fact, on 27 November 2019—and it's sat on the Notice Paper since then because, of course, this government, the Morrison government, does not want to deal with this issue. They don't want transparency around political donations. They want to continue the cover-up, and the recent release from the Australian Electoral Commission on the political donations for the financial year shows why: a $75,000 donation from Clive Palmer to the National Party. It's simply outrageous that the Nationals are accepting donation from Clive Palmer while he's funding his own political party. This government coalition is a coalition between Liberals, Nationals and Clive Palmer. And, because political parties were only required to disclose individual donations above $14,000 during the last financial year, we don't know whether Clive Palmer also made donations to the Liberal Party. He could have donated $13,999 and we wouldn't know about it.

We also don't know which Liberal donors this government has done favours for. Last year we found out that the Leppington Pastoral Company had donated $58,000 to the Liberals and had been paid $30 million for a parcel of land worth, we found out, one-tenth that much. Just last week we found out that Peter Dutton had awarded an $880,000 grant to an organisation eight days after it made a donation of $1,500 to the LNP in support of Mr Dutton. How many other Liberal Party donors have won tenders, grants and approvals funded by taxpayers' money? We don't know because the system lacks transparency. How many donations are we not seeing because the threshold for disclosure is set so high, at $14,300?

Federal Labor discloses all donations above $1,000. That's our policy and that is what we think all parties should be doing so that donations are transparent and there for all to see. That's why we've introduced this bill, and that's exactly what this bill does. All donations over $1,000 would need to be disclosed. That would mean that the Australian public would actually get to see who is funding political parties, not just a tiny piece of the puzzle. With the lower threshold, a whole heap of donations would come to light. There would be greater media scrutiny and reporting of donations, which would mean greater transparency and more information for voters as they went to cast their vote. This can only be good for the democratic process.

Federally, we have some of the worst disclosure laws in the country. We're lagging behind the states and territories. New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland and the ACT all require donations over $1,000 to be disclosed. Western Australia requires the disclosure of donations over $2,500, and South Australia requires donations over $5,000 to be disclosed. All of them are lower than the federal requirements. We can do, and should be doing, better and we have done better in the past. It will not surprise Senator Dean Smith over there to know that it was a Labor government that first introduced a federal donations disclosure regime. That was nearly 40 years ago, in 1983, under the prime ministership of Bob Hawke. All donations above $1,000 were required to be disclosed. In 2006, though, the Liberals, under John Howard, jacked this back up to $10,000 and linked it to CPI. This indexation has caused it to blow out to the current figure of $14,300 for the 2021 year. That's why this bill also removes indexation of the threshold so that it won't increase every year as it does currently. It will be fixed from now into the future at $1,000.

Why would the Liberals massively increase the disclosure threshold unless they wanted to hide the donations they were receiving? They will tell you it's about privacy—that the people who want to donate don't want their names published. But it's not mum-and-dad donors who donate more than $1,000 in one year. If people choose to donate more than that then they ought to be transparent about that donation. Under Labor's proposals the privacy of small donors will still be protected, but a light will be shone on those seeking to influence policy and government decision-making.

The Liberals will also tell you that they don't want to lower the threshold because of the increased compliance burden for these parties—that it's too difficult and too much effort for political parties to fill in the paperwork. Obviously, with a greater number of donations to declare, there will be a greater amount of work, but transparency and accountability are worth the extra effort, and democracy itself is worth it. If that means providing additional public funding to parties and candidates to ensure their compliance then we should be having a conversation about that too.

The release two weeks ago of the donations data also highlights how extraordinarily long it takes the Australian public to find out about the donations political parties have received. It took over 10 months for Australian voters to find out that Clive Palmer had been donating to the National Party. If a donation is made on 1 July, the soonest we can find out about it is 19 months later. It's a bit better if a donation is made on 30 June; then it's only seven months to find out about that donation. That is, quite frankly, ridiculous and utterly unacceptable and is why Labor has another bill before the Senate which would require donations above the threshold to be disclosed within seven days.

If the Liberal Party are able to accept donations and keep them secret for 19 months, that means they've got all the time to give grants, award tenders and do dodgy land deals before anyone finds out about them, and we know that that's what they've been doing, of course. If the Liberal Party is able to accept donations and keep them secret for 19 months then it means that voters don't have the information when they're casting their vote in a polling booth and simply can't hold the Morrison government to account. Our bill for real-time disclosure would also aggregate donations so that, as soon as the total of the donations from a single donor reaches the disclosure threshold, the party would need to disclose all subsequent donations from that donor no matter what their value.

We know that transparency is the key to preventing and identifying corruption. That's why we've been driving Labor's reform agenda. It's Labor, not the government or the Greens, who has been driving the agenda for political donation reform, transparency and government accountability. It was Labor who fought for the ban on political donations. The Liberal Party didn't want to stop taking donations from foreign sources, despite the risk of foreign influence to our democracy. They had to be dragged kicking and screaming into accepting our amendments. It was Labor who protected charities and not-for-profits from government legislation that sought to silence and suppress their political advocacy. It was Labor who ensured that public election funding was linked to campaign expenditure, preventing candidates and parties from profiting from the electoral system. It is Labor again who's fighting for a powerful and independent integrity commission. Where is the government's promised Integrity Commission? We have seen delay after delay, because this government and this Prime Minister don't believe in integrity or accountability in government. It is a constant battle to get this government to come to the table on integrity reforms, and it is a battle to stop it eroding democracy with draconian measures designed to suppress the vote and silence their critics.

We know from Senator McGrath's recommendation as the Chair of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters that the Liberals want to introduce voter ID laws, potentially disenfranchising our most vulnerable Australians; abolish compulsory full-preferential voting, undermining our compulsory voting system; and introduce increased restrictions for charities and not-for-profits, making it harder for them to engage in political advocacy. We will be fighting all of those changes, if the Liberals try to introduce legislation before the next election.

Australians want honesty in government, but they've received the opposite from the coalition. We've had the sports rorts, the community grants rorts and now the safe seats rorts. Are there any grant programs that they won't rort? The Morrison government expects everyone else to play by the rules but thinks that the rules don't apply to it. They want to restrict the abilities of charities to fundraise and restrict their ability to campaign on issues that affect the most vulnerable people in our society. But the government's happy to receive donations from wealthy vested interests and happy with the rules that let it keep those donations secret for as long as possible.

Labor is on the side of accountability and transparency in government. That's what our reforms are designed to achieve. The government know who is donating to them and what they're getting for it. It's information they can use which is hidden from us, the media and the public. Doing a favour for a donor is obviously wrong. It raises questions. But it's not obvious if no-one can see it. We cannot question what we do not know about. We have to trust the government not to take advantage of its position. Given the rorting by this government, you will forgive me for not trusting it. Australians should know about political donations. They should know before they vote, not months—to close to two years—later. With our two bills, that is what is going to happen. Lowering the disclosure threshold is something we can do right now to immediately improve transparency. I commend the bill to the Senate.

Senator ASKEW (Tasmania) (10:15): Today I rise to speak on the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Transparency Measures—Lowering the Disclosure Threshold) Bill 2019, introduced as a private senator's bill by Senator Farrell. As a member of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, I am pleased to make a contribution to this debate. Senator Farrell's bill proposes to amend the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 regarding the amount at which disclosure of political donations is required. It claims that amending the act will restore the integrity of our democracy, but what it will actually do is place an unnecessary administrative burden on political parties and increase the red-tape load disproportionately to the amounts being donated. Don't forget: political parties are largely volunteer-run organisations. Do we want to tie our hardworking volunteers up with even more red tape? A disclosure threshold as low as $1,000 could pick up donations or spending by very small groups such as neighbourhood associations, RSL branches, sporting clubs and other small players who comment favourably or adversely on a federal politician or federal party. It would be unreasonable to expect the smallest donors, like your local footy club, to report with the same intensity as major players. Those donors have only limited financial means, and, while their interest in politics may be only at a peripheral or hobbyist level, we do not want to discourage that interest or their willingness to donate to a political cause. Diversity in donors encourages diversity in views, making our political landscape more representative.

We need to strike a balance that ensures transparency for the largest political donations while protecting the democratic freedom and privacy of smaller players. A disclosure threshold that is set too low will mean a loss of privacy, which in turn compromises the ability to freely sponsor participants in public debate. This bill throws up potential consequences, in that it could expose a person to harassment. Aspiring politicians may shy away from further political participation as a result. Privacy rights should not be traded away so lightly. Consider the harassment tactics that have become popular with political activists in recent years. Personal attacks, particularly via social media, have become so commonplace now. We heard harrowing evidence of this during our hearings into the 2019 election campaign. In an environment where such behaviour is becoming accepted as the norm, there is an even greater need to be cautious about aggressive campaigns that demand greater disclosure of political beliefs. Small businesses, which make up the majority of the Australian business landscape, are often owned by the same person who serves you at the counter, who does the books and who markets their operation. They are likely time poor. If they are to donate to support a candidate or political party who champions their values, they do not want that act to be arduous.

On top of the red-tape issue, small businesses are particularly susceptible to 'cancel culture' intimidation. Word-of-mouth is a key marketing tool for small businesses, but negative word-of-mouth can cost these small operations dearly. This means they might decide not to make a political donation, for fear of harassment or intimidation. A low donation threshold would take away the platform for the diverse opinions that are otherwise heard in public debate today. Many of these opinions come from small players like mum-and-dad small businesses and local sporting groups. We don't want to silence their voices. We want these players to have a say in Australian public debate. This bill is such a blunt instrument that it not only proposes to lower the cap but it also does away with indexation of the disclosure threshold, by proposing repeal of section 321A of the Electoral Act. This would mean that the $1,000 threshold would be frozen in nominal terms, effectively lowering the cap each year. Thousands more Australians would therefore be caught in the red-tape-reporting net as a result.

The coalition has already implemented several reforms to improve the integrity of the electoral system. These include prohibiting foreign political donations, including those from foreign governments and state owned enterprises, from being used to finance public debate; limiting public election funding to demonstrated electoral spending that can be substantiated by receipts; requiring public reporting by key non-party players, like left-wing organisation GetUp; applying the electoral authorisation requirements to modern communication channels, like SMSs; increasing funding for the Australian Electoral Commission to use electronic certified lists of electors, to guard against electoral fraud and ensure that absentee voters have their votes counted in the right electorate; funding modernisation of the AEC's Transparency Register to make it easier to locate and extract data; and making it mandatory for an election candidate to complete a qualification checklist to show they are entitled to run for election to parliament.

We explored the topic of electoral processes and procedures and clarified the relationship between federal, state and territory electoral finance laws just a few months ago in this place, when the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2020 was debated. That bill acknowledged that the legislation around elections and referendums held in Australia could be clearer. It also showed how electoral processes could be enhanced and modernised to allow for greater flexibility within the Australian Electoral Commission. More clarity and streamlined election delivery strengthens our electoral integrity and builds confidence in our voting system. To achieve this clarity, the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2020 amended the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 and the Referendum (Machinery Provisions) Act 1984. In amending the Electoral Act, it clarified donation and disclosure laws relating to the relationship between federal electoral events and those in the states and territories. This followed the 2019 High Court decision of Spence v State of Queensland and reflected the High Court's findings about the exact limits of the Commonwealth's legislative power. The miscellaneous measures bill also provided greater clarity around the relationship between federal, state and territory electoral laws to improve certainty for those who participated in elections across different levels of government. Individuals and entities are subject to different electoral funding and disclosure laws across federal, state and territory jurisdictions, leading to confusion and potentially costly or unlawful errors.

After each federal election, the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters conducts a review into the election. As a first time member of that committee but a long-time volunteer involved in both state and federal campaigns, I found the process enlightening. Naturally, there are always going to be different views from all sides of politics, and we need to ensure that recommendations made and acted upon improve the outcome for the people of Australia. I'm certain that the committee's chair, Senator McGrath, will elaborate on many of the 27 recommendations made from that inquiry during his contribution later today; however, I want to mention just a few that I believe will provide further confidence in the election process for our community. The first of those is the need to identify voters when they present at a polling booth. With a background in banking, where privacy and security are paramount, I have never understood how anyone can simply walk into a polling booth, state their name and address and be accepted in good faith. Who is to say that they haven't been into every polling booth in the neighbourhood and voted on behalf of their family, their neighbours and anyone else they know the details of? In today's world you're asked to verify your identity in almost every aspect of life using PINs, thumbprints or fingerprints and, yes, occasionally even signatures on a regular basis. Why should voting be any different? Further to this, the chair's report also recommended that the electoral roll be strengthened to ensure only those with photo ID or other forms of suitable ID can enrol or change enrolment. This is a simple no-brainer to me.

Other recommendations included broadening the test for affiliated organisations, exploring the possibility of introducing an electronic certified roll, replacing compulsory preferential voting with optional preferential voting, and introducing the Tasmanian initiative the Robson rotation for ordering candidates on ballot papers for the House of Representatives.

Further opportunity to gain insight into the transparency and accountability around political donations and disclosure is currently underway, with the current Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters reporting later this year on its review on the Electoral Legislation Amendment (Electoral Funding and Disclosure Reform) Act 2018. This review commenced on the second anniversary of the royal assent of the bill and will allow us to understand the impacts of the amendments made at that time while also providing an opportunity for further community consultation on this matter.

We need to ensure that we maintain a balanced approach when it comes to political donations. Yes, we need transparency for the largest political donations, but we also need to protect the democratic freedom and privacy of smaller players. This bill seeks to introduce a disclosure threshold so low that it will rob small donors of their privacy and drive them out of political life. A balanced disclosure regime is one that allows political participation by all Australians. The current disclosure threshold appropriately balances red tape, political participation and transparency of the electoral system. Therefore I call on the Senate to reject this bill.

Senator WATERS (Queensland—Leader of the Australian Greens in the Senate) (10:26): I rise to speak on the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Transparency Measures—Lowering the Disclosure Threshold) Bill 2019. This is a bill that would lower the disclosure threshold for donations to political parties to $1,000. That is a noble outcome, but I'm extremely disappointed that, whilst we are debating this bill today, the Labor Party are not bringing this bill on for a vote. They could have done so. The Senate could have voted this through. The Greens certainly would have supported it, and we do support it. It is a bare minimum reform but it is a start. I am extremely disheartened that there seems to be an attempt to be seen to be doing something without actually doing the thing. I call on Labor to rethink their plans to not move this bill for a vote, because, surely, when private senators' time is so scarce, we should use those opportunities to pass good laws.

I will talk about how this bill could be further improved, but the major point here is: it is great that we are debating reform, but why not bring it on for a vote? We know the government don't even want to be seen to be doing anything, let alone actually do something, but to have this chance to push them to a vote and to not do so is baffling to me and incredibly disheartening to the Australian population who want reform in this space. They are sick of their democracy being perceived as for sale, so this is a bare minimum reform. Lowering the disclosure threshold is the least we could do to clean up the influence of big money on politics. It wouldn't remove the influence of that money but it would at least have some transparency over the process. But, after today, we still won't have that because Labor are not bringing this bill on for a vote. So one wonders, frankly, about the point of even debating this if you are not going to move it to a vote.

I'm sure everybody knows that big money continues to corrupt our democracy and prioritises private interests over the public interest and over the interests of the broader constituency and people. Figures disclosed last Monday by the Electoral Commission show that, in 2019, nearly $170 million was donated to political parties, and the majority of that money came from just five big donors. The alarming thing is the trend here. Between the 2016 and the 2019 elections, the amount of money that was donated tripled. So the problem of private money buying political parties and funding their re-election campaigns is getting worse. It has become three times worse between the last two elections, and these are just the donations that we do know about—I will talk a bit about dark money in a moment. This is a particularly concerning trajectory, particularly since we are staring down the barrel of the next election.

The usual suspects like the gambling industry, fossil fuels, pharmaceuticals and the banking sector have continued to give very generously, and they have been rewarded with grants, with contracts, with advantageous policy outcomes—or advantageous policy inaction, in the case of the climate crisis. To give just a few examples, the guy whose box factory opening kept the Prime Minister from an international climate summit, Mr Anthony Pratt, donated $1.55 million to the coalition through Pratt Holdings. And Pratt's company, Visy, ended up with a $10 million bushfire recovery grant and now a recycling export ban that strengthens their market dominance. The biggest five fossil fuel giants—Woodside, Santos, Rio Tinto, BHP and Peabody—collectively gave around $10 million to the major parties and to lobby groups in 2019-20. Is it any wonder that we see government paralysis on the climate crisis and this continued fiction of a gas led recovery?

Chevron paid no tax on their Australian earnings, but they somehow managed to find $92,000 to donate to the major parties. Crown, who you'll hear a lot more about this week, gave almost $146,000 to the major parties in 2019-20 and they have given $2 million since the year 2000. Given the evidence in the Bergin report just last week about criminal involvement and money-laundering allegations, it really is incumbent upon both big parties to give that money back or, better still, to give it to a gambling support service and charity, and we'll be talking about that later today.

I have more examples of big money buying big outcomes. The big four accounting firms donated $400,000 to the big parties. Over that same period they got themselves almost $600 million in government contracts. That's a pretty good return on investment. After a brief hiatus during the banking royal commission, the big banks have resumed donating. The banks, the financial lobby groups and the major insurance and credit firms delivered over $900,000 to the government in 2019-20. That wouldn't possibly have anything to do with the efforts to relax responsible-lending laws now, would it?

The Greens have consistently advocated for lowering not just the disclosure threshold but the amount that people, organisations, companies and unions—anybody—are permitted to donate to a political party. We'd like to see bans on particular industries that have a demonstrated history of seeking influence on policymaking. We don't think they should be allowed to donate at all. But at the very least we think that there should be a cap of $1,000 per year on how much you—no matter who you are—can donate to the big political parties. This would level the playing field. This small modest amount, hopefully, isn't enough to buy influence. It would still be constitutional and allow people to express their desires to support a particular party. Big money should not be running our political system. At the moment it's running rife. It got worse over the last election period. This bill attempts to do the barest minimum of reforms, and we're not even going to get to vote on it today.

Real-time disclosure is another issue. We've that in Queensland now. This bill doesn't address speeding up the disclosure time frame. There's a lag of up to 19 months before the public learns who donated what to whom. That delay doesn't help transparency. In fact, it hides possible policy outcomes that may have been obtained from that donating. So we need a rigorous real-time disclosure regime and we need to properly address this issue of dark money not just by lowering the disclosure threshold but by treating as political donations things like membership fees, fundraising dinner fees and the cosy lunches and dinners where you pay a squillion dollars to sit next to the minister and speak in her or his ear. We need to treat all of that as political donations to get some transparency and accountability in the system.

As I said, we support lowering the disclosure threshold to $1,000. Whilst this improves transparency, it doesn't remove the influence of that money. Greater transparency would give information but it would still take up to 19 months to disclose. It will tell us who's buying our democracy but not in a timely manner and it won't stop it being for sale.

We saw a report this morning that the extent of dark money is off the charts. Some 40 per cent of the money received by the coalition falls into the category where they don't need to disclose who's giving them that money. It's called dark money because it either falls under the disclosure threshold or is in a category where you don't otherwise have to disclose. It includes things like fundraising dinners, membership subscriptions and donations from support bodies that are affiliated with the party. Dark money is a huge problem. Some 40 per cent of the coalition's funds are dark money and I think 27.7 per cent of Labor's funds are dark money. So, while lowering the disclosure threshold will address some of that, it still leaves those other categories unregulated. We have the chance to fix that, and we should be doing exactly that.

This bill doesn't capture membership fees. It doesn't capture subscriptions or attendance at fundraising events. It doesn't lift the curtain on those holding companies and foundations that warehouse donations. So, without that reform, significant sources of campaign income will remain hidden. This bill also doesn't stop government grants and contracts from going to donors. It doesn't prevent companies from applying for government approvals while donating and donating while their applications are being assessed. In recent years we've seen a litany of examples of companies, including Santos and Adani, making donations at around about the time their approvals were given. That is something that the Greens would like to reform as well. This bill doesn't impose any restrictions on the source of political donations. We've seen in the media this week the revelations about Crown. Clearly, accepting donations from organisations like Crown, which is now embroiled in criminal allegations and money-laundering allegations—it's just past tenable that any party would continue to receive or even retain donations from folk like Crown. The defence, pharmaceutical, mining, property development, banking and alcohol industries should also be explicitly prohibited from seeking to buy favourable outcomes through donations.

Lastly, this bill doesn't put a cap on the total amount of donations that can be made. It doesn't bring forward that 19-month delay in disclosure. A few weeks ago—as, earlier today, Senator Farrell said when he spoke to this bill—the Labor Party were dismayed that Clive Palmer and his political party had made donations to the Nationals and generally spent an awful lot of money trying to buy electoral outcomes, either for themselves or for the coalition. But despite this outrage, which I note is lacking when it comes to fossil fuel donations and the influence that that industry seeks, just last week they sadly refused to vote for our motion calling for real-time disclosure and donation caps. They said the parliament needed to debate real reforms. Here we are debating some reforms, but you're not even bringing it to a vote. I think you're being hoist with your own petard. I therefore move a second reading amendment standing in my name on sheet 1194:

At the end of the motion, add: ", but the Senate notes that this Bill should be complemented by reforms to:

(a) cap the total value of political donations that can be received by a political party, candidate, political campaigner or associated entity; and

(b) require more timely disclosure of political donations above the disclosure thresh

This amendment is drafted in such a way that we hope people will be able to support it. I understand it has now been circulated in the chamber. This amendment calls for a cap on the amount of political donations that can be made. We would like it set at $1,000, but we're open to discussion. It also calls for a more timely disclosure of political donations so that we're not waiting for 19 months. Queensland manages real-time disclosure, and there is a variety of time frames that apply in different states. It can be done; it can be sped up. Let's have that conversation. As I'm an eternal optimist, I look forward to getting some support when the time comes for the second reading amendment.

I might flag one final point: were this bill to have gone to a vote, had the Labor Party sought to do so, we would have moved some committee stage amendments to address this point. We don't have that opportunity today, but we may have that opportunity in the future. Lowering the disclosure threshold will impose greater reporting requirements on third parties, and the term 'third party' is defined. The definition in section 287 means that an organisation becomes a third party when its spending on electoral matters is more than the disclosure threshold. If you were to be deemed a third party, you would therefore be subject to higher reporting requirements and, beyond just the disclosure of those same donations, there would be additional obligations that would flow. We are concerned, as we always have been, that that might deter smaller organisations from advocating on important political issues during election campaigns—I'm thinking in particular of environmental organisation, given that's my background. This is a very readily fixed issue, simply by decoupling the definition of 'third party' from the disclosure threshold and instead tying it to an amount of electoral expenditure. I understand this issue is before JSCEM, which I sit on, and will probably be addressed in the review of the electoral funding and disclosure reform, or EFDR, bill. We look forward to, hopefully, having a consensus workable solution on that matter. But I wanted to place on record that we're aware of the issue and keen to see it addressed.

We had an opportunity here today to debate donations reform. There is such a long list of reforms that are needed. Yes, we need to lower the disclosure threshold, but we've got to cap the amount that people can donate. We've got to make sure that that disclosure happens as quickly as possible. We've got to capture all that dark money by making sure that memberships, fundraisers and those other uncategorised donations actually do have to be disclosed. People have a right to know who is seeking to buy influence, and, frankly, people have a right to a system that is free from being able to be bought. That's why we'd like to see a cap on the amount of donations that can be made to political parties, and a level playing field. No matter who you are, that cap should apply. Individuals, unions, companies, vested interests, lobby groups—you name it. Let's get the influence of big money out of our politics and out of our democracy. This isn't America. Our democracy shouldn't be for sale to the highest bidder. We should be guided by evidence and by the public interest in making decisions, not by who just took you out to lunch and promised to make a motza of a contribution to get you re-elected.

The Australian people deserve that reform. Momentum is building for that reform. The Greens have been pushing for this for 10 years now—that seems to be about the time frame it has taken for other things to get done. It took us 10 years before a federal ICAC was at least agreed to in principle by big political parties. Of course we're yet to see one, but we continue to wait. So we will still be here pushing for reform of our political system, because people want their democracy back.

Senator AYRES (New South Wales) (10:41): I've listened carefully to Senator Waters and to Senator Farrell outline their approaches to the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Transparency Measures—Lowering the Disclosure Threshold) Bill 2019. I have to say I think there is largely agreement in the Australian community about what the nature of the problem is. There is largely agreement—apart from on the government side—that the influence of unregulated undisclosed money in politics is a deep problem for our political system and a deep problem for the level of trust that there is between people and their government.

We saw, of course, in the last election Mr Clive Palmer—that disreputable businessman from Queensland—spending an enormous amount of money largely directed against the Labor Party. It was tens of millions of dollars across the country, spent in an entirely unaccountable and unprincipled way and directed to supporting—in particular in Queensland, New South Wales and Western Australia—the candidates that the Morrison government put forward in that election. We've seen scandals about donations being provided by companies and by organisations who later got grants from the Morrison government. People are, I think, entitled to have a deep level of scepticism about this government's commitment to a clean electoral system, to a balanced electoral system.

When you listen to Senator Waters, it is as if the impetus for electoral reform somehow comes from the Greens political party. It's as if they are the pure source of deep concern about the Australian electoral system and as if nobody else in the system, in the community or in academia has been talking about this issue for decade after decade. The Greens' interest in this area is welcome, though. I do think, having listened carefully to Senator Waters and looking at the Greens' policy position in this area, that they have some similar motivations but they get the answer quite wrong.

I do think that the bill that Senator Farrell has spoken to and dealt with offers the right answer to some very complex questions. It only deals with the questions that we've been outlining today. As Senator Waters says, there are other issues in the political system that we ought to be having regard to. So that's the Greens' position: right motivation, but I think they get the answers wrong. I think the Farrell bill is well worth this parliament supporting. But it does beg the question: what is the Morrison government's position about electoral reform? Well, it's two things. Firstly, it's, 'Nothing to see here; move on,' and, secondly, it's, 'How can we use this for our own partisan political advantage, to game the system?'

Of course the regulation of political donations is fundamental to our democracy. Donations are a form of speech, in fact. The High Court has upheld that donations are a form of political communication. Who can donate, how they can donate and the process through which that is disclosed are fundamental for citizens' participation in democracy. The lesson has to be clear from the United States about where you end up going as a society and a community if you allow completely unregulated, undisclosable, not transparent money into the political system.

In this country, the laws around political donations are subject to two legal tests: firstly, does the law burden the implied freedom of political communication and, secondly, is the law reasonably appropriate and adapted to serve a legitimate end in a manner compatible with a constitutionally prescribed system of responsible and representative government? The truth is that all regulation of political donations effectively burdens the freedom of political communication. The question is: when you regulate, is it appropriate and is it directed towards a legitimate end? We don't want an American-style system that preferences the constitutional rights of a wealthy few over the health of our whole political system, so what should be the legitimate ends of our system of electoral donations?

Our system should prioritise accountability, transparency, integrity and equity. The purpose of regulation in this area should be to provide for a vibrant public sphere. It should be to provide for more voices of ordinary Australians in politics, not fewer. It should engage and encourage speech and donations by individuals and organisations that bring more people into the political system and don't force the voices of ordinary Australians out. I don't believe that our election system should be entirely publicly funded. That is a recipe, supported by some, that leads to a sort of dull centrism where the ordinary voices of Australians are locked out. There's a balance to be struck here between proper public funding and ensuring that political parties are able to participate effectively in the political system without being beholden to donations and supporting the rights of political parties to be supported, whether it's by $10 donations from individuals or larger donations from organisations.

I have been engaged in this argument for many, many years, inside this parliament and outside of it. In 2012, the New South Wales government introduced laws that banned donations from any organisation or person who was not an enrolled voter in the state. It aggregated the electoral communications expenditure of parties and affiliated bodies such as unions under expenditure caps. So the Liberal Party in New South Wales did in its interests what the Greens would like to do in their interests if they were ever in charge: they abolished the capacity of their political opponents to participate in the system. That's what they did. They made it unlawful for unions and community organisations—environment organisations, neighbourhood organisations—to participate in the political system. I supported the Unions New South Wales case, which went to the High Court, which ultimately kicked out the O'Farrell legislation and turned down the New South Wales government on the basis that I described. It was not a legitimate end that the government sought; it was a political end that the government sought for its own political advantage.

There is quite some history to the labour movement's engagement in politics in this country. Most of our modern political history was shaped by the labour movement and the Labor Party participating in politics. Almost all of the good things that have happened in modern Australian history have happened as a result of the labour movement and the Labor Party's participation; and people, when considering their approach to donations, ought to have regard to that.

If the Nurses and Midwives Association want to use their resources in the lead-up to an election to campaign on nurse-to-patient ratios in a way that's openly declared, spending perhaps millions of dollars worth of members' money, who on earth are a group of politicians to tell them that that ought to be regulated out of existence? If the AMWU want to fight for locally built trains and apprenticeships, if the ASU want to fight for proper funding for better funded domestic violence services, or if the SDA or the United Workers Union want to fight for penalty rates in hospitality and retail, that's what we want in the political system. We want more people making the argument, bringing the argument home, but the Greens bill would see those voices silenced, in many respects.

The first meeting of the New South Wales Labor Party—I always say the New South Wales Labor Party; I don't want to upset my Queensland colleagues—was on 4 April 1891 at the Unity Hall Hotel in Balmain. That pub is still there. The Balmain Labor Electoral League accepted a donation from the dock workers union, which paid for the registration of all of the Labor league candidates for that election. Our movement has survived for 130 years because of those institutional connections.

In my view, the bill being offered this morning by the Greens is naive. It's partisan recklessness. Excluding individuals should be a product of careful and deliberate consultation, not a list of the people that you wish weren't participating in the public space. It's based on the proposition—I think by many people who approach this area of regulation—that, if all of these voices were removed, somehow the argument that had merit would rise to the top; somehow there would be this process where people would fairly consider the arguments. Well, the truth is that politics is shaped by institutional power, by a struggle for power and a struggle for winning propositions in the public sphere, and, whether your disagreement is with big mining or the finance industry, you can't legislate those people out of having some role. It is true that, where there is a nexus between pecuniary advantage and public policy, it is a legitimate end. For example, in the New South Wales system, I do think that there is a very strong argument for keeping property developers out of local and state government decision-making. That makes absolute sense. I think there is a community understanding that the tobacco industry ought not be engaged in that, given how closely related they are to health industry regulation. The case has to be made out, and it has to satisfy the test that the High Court set out for the parliament. I don't think the list that's provided does that.

I do want to spend a little bit of time, though, on the bill before us and the government's approach. Lowering disclosure thresholds is pretty fundamental. Our federal sphere has the weakest political donation laws of any jurisdiction. The disclosure threshold is entirely out of step with the states and the territories. In Queensland, it's $1,000; New South Wales, $1,000; Western Australia, $1,000; Victoria, $1,040, for some reason; the ACT, $1,000; and South Australia, $5,000. In the federal sphere, you can donate up to $14,300, and nobody will know. There is no aggregation. Multiple donations below the threshold can go unreported. As Senator Waters outlined to the chamber, that's why 40 per cent of the money received by the coalition parties to campaign in Australia is dark money—it is unreported, unaccountable, from individuals unknown.

In a system where we are watching developments overseas and watching developments in our own jurisdiction with foreign interference, with big money getting involved in politics, with scandal after scandal here, rort after rort here and smug arrogance in the way this government treats government money as Liberal Party money, it is entirely proper that people look at that 40 per cent of Scott Morrison's electoral war chest—40 per cent of it; nearly half—when nobody knows where it's come from. Nobody knows who made those donations. Nobody knows which piper is calling the Morrison tune on any particular day.

We do need proper electoral regulation in this country. We do need a National Integrity Commission to oversee the intersection between money and politics. We saw, just last week, Mr Dutton award a grant of nearly $900,000 to an organisation eight days after it donated to the Queensland Liberal National Party. He took a $36,000 chartered flight to Tasmania to announce a grant that he hadn't even awarded yet. This program wasn't Safer Communities; it was Safer Seats! That's what Minister Dutton was engaged in. That's why people are sceptical about the role of money in politics, and that's why this place and the other place need to get with the program and get a decent system of electoral regulation so we can rebuild confidence in the system.

Debate adjourned.

Senator STEELE-JOHN (Western Australia) (10:56): The Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability is a historic opportunity for truth and justice. It was created as the result of a vast community campaign, spanning every section of our country, to create a mechanism by which we as disabled people would be able to tell our stories and to disclose the information that we have and the evidence we have gathered—speaking to the violence, speaking to the abuse, speaking to the exploitation and neglect of our community. It should be the case that every person who wishes to give that evidence to the commission is able to do so, their safety guaranteed—safe in the knowledge that giving that evidence, giving that information, sharing that story, will not in any way negatively impact on them. It will not jeopardise their future employment. It will not place them at risk of harm.

The reality, however, is that right now, due to a flaw in the law which creates and empowers royal commissions, that guarantee of protection, that guarantee of privacy, cannot be given. Right now, the confidentiality of information given to the commission as confidential only remains and is retained as confidential for the life of the royal commission. This means that, when the royal commission ends, the confidentiality protection ends. That information can be FOI'd. That information can be given as evidence. This flaw in the law removes people's confidence in the protection that is needed for them to come forward and tell their stories.

This is particularly harmful in a context where we know that, if you have experienced violence, abuse, exploitation or neglect, you have almost certainly experienced systemic failure. Somebody who was charged with your protection let you down, abused you. In order to get people to come forward and tell their stories, to give the evidence to guide the investigation of these systemic failures, people must be given the confidence that their confidentiality will be protected and that giving this evidence will not do them any harm, because disabled people have been telling our stories for many decades and we are often subject to harm because we've disclosed them. We are often dissuaded from giving our evidence, and it often has a negative impact. The outcome of this absence of protection is that the disability royal commission is not getting the evidence that it needs. It is not hearing the evidence that it needs to hear in order to guide its investigation so that it can make recommendations at the end of this process—having exposed the wrongs and the cover-ups—that we, as parliamentarians, need to form the basis of legislation, which will then eliminate from our society the violence against and the abuse and neglect of disabled people.

For 18 months the government have known that this change is needed. At the very first hearing, the chair of the royal commission flagged that this change was needed. The commission then wrote to the government in February 2020 saying, 'This change is needed.' The commission stated clearly in its October interim report that the absence of these protections was serving as an impediment to the investigation, an impediment to this historic opportunity for justice. We Greens have been clear with the Morrison government: if you do not act, we will. We introduced this bill in October. We put the government on notice that this change was urgently needed. The government have failed to be forthcoming, so today this bill is being debated, and I hope it will be voted on and voted for by this chamber. It will, very simply, ensure that if evidence is given confidentially it is retained as confidential. It will provide safety and security to people giving their evidence so that they can begin the process of building up the support they need to tell their story, to come forward and say: 'This is what happened. This is who knew. This is who I tried to tell.'

We know that there are so many people in the community who worked in governmental institutions—who still work in government—who have observed the profound failure to bring light into dark places, to ensure justice is done; instead, observing cover-up and silence. We know that there are people who want to tell their stories but have not done so because of the absence of these protections. This bill solves that problem. It sorts it, as it should have been sorted 18 months ago. I commend it to the chamber in the hope that it will be voted on and passed, and that finally disabled people will have the protection we need to tell our stories, to heal and to get justice.

Senator SCARR (Queensland) (11:02): Can I first say how much I admire, and have admired since coming to this place more than 18 months ago, Senator Steele-John's passion with respect to this subject and his advocacy of this matter. I commend Senator Siewert as well, because I know she's had an integral part in maintaining the pressure, which absolutely had to be maintained, to establish the royal commission. I just want to place that on the record. We saw that passion on display once again today. I think it's fair to say that there'd be many Australians suffering under a disability today who look at you, Senator Steele-John, with great admiration.

The government agrees that there is a problem that needs to be fixed and needs to be fixed quickly, because it is absolutely essential that disabled people have an opportunity to tell their stories and that confidentiality should be maintained where it needs to be maintained. There is absolutely no question about that whatsoever. I commend Senator Steele-John for introducing this private member's bill.

The government did announce on 20 October last year—after, as I understand it, the private member's bill was introduced—that it was in the process of drafting legislation to address this very problem. It is hoped that that legislation is introduced in the autumn sittings of this parliament. As Senator Steele-John has said, it is really time critical that this legislation is introduced, because when this royal commission concludes its deliberations we must ensure that, where the confidentiality of those people who have made submissions to the royal commission is absolutely crucial, it is maintained on and from the date of the end of the royal commission. It's also important that the step be taken as soon as possible. The reason for that—and Senator Steele-John touched on this in his contribution—is that we need to send a message to everyone in the Australian community that the Australian government is aware of this issue; that all members of this Senate, including Senator Steele-John, are aware of this issue; that this issue needs to be addressed; and that this issue will be addressed. I'm happy to stand behind that statement I've just made on the record—it will be addressed before the royal commission comes to an end. So, if you have a story to tell the royal commission, please tell your story.

In preparation for this debate I read the interim report from the royal commission, which was released towards the end of last year. I want to read a quote from the front of the interim report which stands out, because I think it really sums up this debate and goes to the crux of why it is so important. The quote that introduces the interim report is, 'What is happening to people is not okay and the stories need to be told.' I commend the chair of the royal commission and the six commissioners for the work they've done, and I note that one of the commissioners, the Hon. Roslyn Atkinson AO, served with distinction in the Supreme Court of Queensland. I congratulate the Hon. Ronald Sackville and all of the other six commissioners: the Hon. Ros Atkinson, of my home state; Ms Barbara Bennett; Dr Rhonda Galbally; Ms Andrea Mason; Mr Alastair McEwin; and the Hon. John Ryan for the work which they've done. It is quite incredible that they've so far received 1,928 submissions, had 7,608 telephone conversations, issued 12 issue reports and received 468 responses—an outstanding response.

I want to take some time—and it's not happy reading—to read some of the case studies which have been drawn out in the interim report of the royal commission. I think in doing this we emphasise the need and the requirement for there to be confidentiality, because when I go through these case studies you'll see, Madam Acting Deputy President Fierravanti-Wells, the vulnerability of the people of which I will talk about in terms of reprisals and being disadvantaged or discriminated against because they told their story. In all of these cases there's a footnote:

Names changed and some details removed to protect people's identities. Narrative based on a submission to the Royal Commission.

So it's quite clear on the face of these submissions that there is a need for confidentiality to be maintained.

The first case study, which is from the victim's perspective and by a lady who's given the name 'Jane', reads that Jane:

… began having seizures as a baby, resulting in development delays and challenging behaviours. Maree—

her mother—

told us in her submission that Jane's autism wasn't properly diagnosed until her early teens.

By the time Jane was in her late teens, Maree was worn out because of lack of support. So she and her husband made the decision for Jane to live in a care home supported by a large agency. She describes it as a traumatic option but the only one possible at the time.

Maree told us that Jane was excited at the idea of living independently. But although Jane was very happy with the night and weekend staff, she had many issues with the day staff.

I can try to put myself in the position of the parents of this daughter, Jane, and the angst that they went through when trying to work out what was best for Jane. They came to a decision that Jane needed to be given the opportunity to go into a care home supported by a large agency. They made that decision in good faith. But what they found was this: Jane's behaviour management plan was never followed. Jane was subject to humiliation, intimidation and bullying.

Maree complained to the day service staff and eventually to the general manager. Her emails went unanswered and she felt that staff avoided her.

Again, can one imagine the emotional turmoil that Maree, the mother, is going through at the treatment of her daughter Jane, and what Jane is going through?

In her submission Maree describes ringing one night to speak with Jane. The staff member who answered asked if the agency had been in touch regarding the 'critical incident'. Maree hadn't heard about it. Then Jane told her she had been sexually abused by a staff member. Maree told us that when she called the agency the next morning they asked, 'Oh you think that happened? Do you want us to get the police involved?' Maree was adamant that she did. Two weeks later Jane was interviewed by the police.

Maree told us that in the 20 months it took for the case to go to trial, Jane was in a constant state of anxiety and the agency offered her no support. Jane developed a fear of new people supporting her. When new support people were introduced, she was scared of them and told Maree they were hurting her. Jane's behaviour escalated and police were called.

Maree recounts in her submission that the staff member was found guilty and sentenced to prison. The prosecutor was surprised because it is 'quite rare for a person with a disability to win a case of abuse', as they are not considered reliable witnesses. However, the conviction was overturned on appeal. Maree told us she felt that a factor in this outcome was that Jane had to engage with a series of prosecutors who lacked understanding of autistic people, while the defendant had one lawyer for the entire process.

Maree says that Jane was left angry, fearful, anxious and distrusting, and behaved accordingly. She says the service provider suggested Jane would benefit from a stay in their lockdown facility to 'help people with challenging behaviours'. Maree wanted to see the facility and a behaviour management plan, but says this never happened. Instead, she says, they placed Jane there one weekend when they were short-staffed and suggested Jane have no contact with Maree or her favourite people.

Again, can you imagine the emotional burden and toll this is taking on Maree, the mother of Jane, let alone what Jane was going through?

Maree states that when, after 10 days, she was allowed to see Jane, she was appalled at the conditions – there was nothing to do and Jane had been denied her personal possessions. Maree believes 'this place, and how she was treated, has become a trigger to the fears and nightmares' Jane still experiences.

Maree and her husband brought Jane home. Maree told us Jane was severely damaged by the experience and blamed Maree for sending her there. She said Jane was fearful of home support staff and reacted aggressively.

Maree's submission describes Jane having post-traumatic anxiety attacks. During these attacks, which are like seizures and can last for hours, she requires incontinence pads, rails on the bed, a helmet and a wheelchair. 'This is a young woman who is normally very physically able and is continent,' says Maree.

Jane is living out of home again and things seem better, but what happened to her 'continues to have an impact on her daily life … on our family and her carers. Maree told us she would like to see more comprehensive training for people working in the disability system and the legal system …

That's the story of Jane and Maree and what they went through as a family.

Then there's the perspective of an employee. Employees are in particularly perilous positions if they turn whistleblower and disclose what is happening in a facility which they believe is untoward, unethical or inappropriate. They can be the subject of persecution in terms of their employment, but it can also affect their future opportunity to obtain employment, because future employers might say, 'Well, if they blew the whistle on that employer, maybe they might blow the whistle on me.' Lena is an employee. This is her story:

When Lena arrived for her first shift as a disability support worker in a day centre, she expected it to be as advertised. 'On paper the roster of programs looked fantastic,' she told us. Participants, some with high needs, could choose different activities … 'They should have been enjoying their life, but they weren't.' Instead she was confronted with 32 people, some restrained, some wearing face guard masks and some lying on the floor. There were only two staff and Lena was told to 'get on with it the best you can'.

It goes on. That's Lena's story—an employee. Her confidentiality needs to be protected.

Then we have the story of Toby and Gavin and, again, their names have been changed and some details removed:

Toby's dad, Gavin, made a submission in which he described Toby's experiences in employment. Toby, who has moderate intellectual disability, knows kitchens. He had been working in different kitchens for businesses large and small for 15 years when he started a job in a hotel early last decade. Toby wasn't too bothered by the initial pranks … until what Gavin calls the 'bad stuff' started.

What began as 'jokes' soon became unwelcome, prolonged, repetitive, intimidating and harassing. The attacks were mostly perpetrated by a particular chef, Chad, who was often left in charge. Gavin described just a few of these incidents.

One was where Chad and his mate locked Toby in the freezer, leaving him cold and scared and screaming …

Another time they sprayed Toby's shaved head with oil and then set his head and T-shirt alight.

Chad told Toby he had to pay him $10 for every day he was kept in the job. Sometimes Toby paid, Gavin said, and, when he didn't, Chad would remind him he was keeping a total of how much Toby owed.

Sometimes Chad and his mate would stand behind Toby, grabbing his buttocks and pushing their groin into his backside shouting obscenities.

One time Chad and his mate took a large kitchen knife, made Toby close his eyes and dragged the blunt side along his arm. Next time, they promised, they would 'do it for real'.

That's the story of Toby and Gavin. I think their confidentiality needs to be protected.

Now we have the story of Dev and Jana:

Jana's son, Dev, has Williams syndrome, is autistic and has a mild intellectual disability. She told us that, in 2014, Dev was admitted to a children's hospital, where he was neglected by staff.

Dev and Jana recount how the hospital and, in particular, certain doctors, failed to do what they needed to do in order to give Dev the attention he needed. Again, I think it is important that their confidentiality is protected, so that they can have access to the medical support which they need without anyone referring to the testimony which they have given to the royal commission.

These stories go on and on and on and they are an absolute searing indictment not just of the individuals involved but of a system which has not been delivering what it ought be delivering to people with a disability in our country, living here in an advanced economy, a civilised nation. They certainly deserve better and, when their stories are told, they have every right to expect confidentiality, and I look forward to the government's legislation to give them exactly that.

Senator WATT (Queensland) (11:17): I rise to speak in support of the Royal Commissions Amendment (Confidentiality Protections) Bill 2020, and Labor will be supporting this bill. The bill will amend the Royal Commissions Act 1902 and make consequential amendments to the Freedom of Information Act 1982 to ensure ongoing confidentiality protections for people giving evidence to the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability. Currently, evidence that is received in private sessions conducted by the Disability Royal Commission is treated as confidential and is guaranteed to remain confidential after the commission's work is completed. However, the same privacy protections do not apply where evidence or information is received by the commission outside of a private session, even if prior to the evidence or information being given the commission indicated to the person providing the evidence or information that it would be treated as confidential and, after it was received by the commission, the material was, in fact, treated as confidential. It is quite astounding that such information will not be protected by privacy protections in the same way.

Disability advocates have argued persuasively that this may discourage some people from giving evidence to the disability royal commission. The amendments in this bill have been sought by disability advocates including the Australian Federation of Disability Organisations and also by the chair of the disability royal commission, Ronald Sackville AO QC. In fact, it is difficult to find anyone who is opposed to these amendments. Last year, the Morrison government even announced that it would introduce similar legislation yet the Morrison government is so allergic to following through on its announcements that, as is almost invariably the case, it has done nothing. We will soon find out whether the Morrison government's aversion to following through on its announcements extends to voting against legislation that would do more than implement the government's own policy commitment, a truly bizarre situation.

Let's be very clear: the disability royal commission is ongoing, and the amendments in this bill are likely to have a material impact on the willingness of people with disabilities to make submissions to the commission. There is no reason to delay the introduction of this relatively simple set of amendments, and there are plenty of reasons to expedite them. As we learned from the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, it is critical that survivors of abuse in institutional settings be allowed to tell their stories in private and that requests for confidentiality be respected and backed by legislation; otherwise, many will not tell their stories at all.

In 2013 the Gillard Labor government amended the Royal Commissions Act 1902 to allow the chair of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse to authorise a fellow commissioner to hold a private session to receive information from victims and others affected by child sexual abuse. As the then Attorney-General said at the time:

A traditional royal commission hearing setting will not generally serve as the best way to facilitate participation in the royal commission by those people affected by child sexual abuse.

For many, telling their story will be deeply personal and traumatic. While we cannot know at this time how many people will wish to participate, sadly we know that this crime has affected many in our community.

Over 8,000 personal stories were told to commissioners in private sessions during the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. Many others were able to tell their personal stories confidentially outside of private sessions, and they could do so because of the privacy protections that were inserted into the Royal Commissions Act and the Freedom of Information Act in relation to the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse.

Against that background, it is important to emphasise that the specific amendments in this bill are consistent with the privacy protections that applied to the child sexual abuse royal commission. Clearly the privacy protections that applied in relation to the child sexual abuse royal commission should also apply to the disability royal commission. That is what this bill seeks to achieve, and that's why we ask the government to support these amendments.

The privacy concerns driving the introduction of this bill are not the only issue that people with disability and advocates in the sector have raised in relation to this royal commission. The disability royal commission was established in April 2019, in response to community concern about widespread reports of violence against and the neglect, abuse and exploitation of people with a disability. It set out to investigate preventing and better protecting people with disability from experiencing violence, abuse, neglect and exploitation; achieving best practice in reporting, investigating and responding to violence, abuse, neglect and exploitation of people with disability; and promoting a more inclusive society that supports people with disability to be independent and live free from violence, abuse, neglect and exploitation.

The Morrison government dragged its feet for two years before establishing the royal commission, which Labor first called for in 2017. It was finally announced in 2019, but only at the prospect of the government losing a vote on the floor of parliament. At the time, then Leader of the Opposition Bill Shorten said:

We have to recognise that while ever we are a nation who devalues people with a disability, then we will never actually get to the root cause of violence and the prevention of violence, abuse and neglect.

But the disability royal commission has been plagued by this government's continuing disinterest in the systemic problems that exist in Australia's disability frameworks. The terms set out by the disability royal commission are at risk of not being properly investigated while the Morrison government overlooks the basic requirements of people seeking to make a submission to the inquiry.

Since the inquiry's establishment, Labor has called for the Morrison government to heed the calls of more than 60 disability advocacy groups and address the composition of the disability royal commission, to remove commissioners who have conflicts of interest and to replace them with people who have lived experience of disability and the support of the sector. The royal commission is inquiring into episodes that are highly sensitive as well as confronting for those affected. It is only appropriate that the commissioners be people who can hear such evidence objectively and without any perception that their consideration of this evidence be biased in any way. In 2019 the majority of the Senate supported a motion calling on the Morrison government to remove two of the commissioners and to replace them, with a set of positive criteria identified by the disability community. The Morrison government has ignored these concerns, and people with disability remain uncomfortable with making submissions to a royal commission overseen by former disability bureaucrats with real or perceived links to institutions of abuse and neglect.

For too long people with disability have had to reiterate 'nothing about us without us'. These calls have been frustrated by this royal commission, which has heard from more experts and carers than it has witnesses with lived experience of disability. The vetting process of expert witnesses providing evidence has been questioned following the appearance of Mr Simon Wardale, who a coroner found, in relation to the death of a disabled woman under his care, fell into error by failing to remain alert to the possibility of a serious head injury and to act decisively. Mr Wardale appeared as an expert witness as part of last September's public hearings into the use of psychotropic medication, behaviour support and behaviours of concern. That he has been provided a platform to speak on behalf of people with a disability is unacceptable and raises serious concerns about the process used by the royal commission to invite witnesses to appear before it.

Often the reason people with disability fall prey to abuse can be directly linked to the inherent power imbalances that exist in treatment or carer-patient relationships. A royal commission investigating violence against—and then neglect, abuse and exploitation of—people with disability should therefore hear from people with disability first and foremost, and properly vetted experts and carers secondarily to supplement that evidence. Despite the issues with confidence in the disability royal commission, Labor supports the people with disability and advocates who continue to fight for ownership of the inquiry. The calls to action so far made by the disability royal commission have been constructive.

In March 2020, the royal commission issued a statement of concern that the federal government had not included people with disability in the emergency planning for the coronavirus response. In August, the royal commission held hearings into the experiences of people with disability during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, revealing that the Morrison government did not mention disability once in its first pandemic response plan. The hearings heard stories such as Ricky's, who's aged 45 and in Melbourne. He was forced to survive on muesli bars for nine days while bedridden without access to a support worker when coronavirus hit. What a way to treat our fellow Australians! The oversight of 4.4 million people in a national emergency is symptomatic of the struggle that Australians with disability face in a society that, without leadership from its government, continues to exclude and overlook them.

Labor supports the finding by the royal commission that it was a serious failure that no Australian government agency with responsibility for disability policy, including the Department of Health, made any significant effort to consult with people with disability or their representative organisations during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic. In its 560-page interim report, handed down in October 2020, the royal commission noted these attitudinal and communication barriers and the high rates of violence many people experience. The report did not make a clear set of recommendations but urged the federal government to do more to support people with disability during the coronavirus pandemic. Labor is calling on the Morrison government to act immediately on the issues presented by the interim report to prevent the further exclusion of people with disability from national planning and response.

At the same time Commissioner Ronald Sackville handed down the interim report, the royal commission made a request to the government that, due to the scale of work required and the COVID-19 pandemic, the April 2022 reporting date for the final report be extended by an extra 17 months, until 29 September 2023. Mr Sackville has reasoned that the broad scope of the inquiry's terms of reference—one of the biggest of any royal commission—means no firm recommendations could be made in the interim report and the commission needs an extension to hand down a final report. He is expected to request an extension to 29 September 2023.

Labor supports the royal commission's request for an extension and urges the government to address the barriers preventing many people from making a submission before the closing date. It's almost two years into the inquiry and it is long overdue that these concerns be addressed. Labor will continue to call on the government to act so that the royal commission can maintain its integrity, and people with disability, their families and carers and the disability sector can have confidence that their evidence is heard independently and impartially.

In conclusion, Labor will be supporting these amendments. We don't see any distinction between the arrangements that were made by the previous Gillard Labor government in relation to the child sexual abuse royal commission and this royal commission into the abuse of people with disability. Arrangements were changed for the child sexual abuse royal commission to ensure that evidence could be provided confidentially, with privacy protections, outside of private sessions. We think that the same thing should be done in relation to the disability royal commission.

People with a disability have been waiting far too long for these terrible abuses and neglect to be properly investigated. We should all be doing everything we can to ensure that their evidence can be provided safely, confidentially and securely, to inspire confidence in this royal commission and to ensure that at last people with disability who have suffered abuse and neglect actually can be heard properly and securely and can have confidence that their concerns will be dealt with. These abuses have gone on too long. Confidentiality is required to make sure that they are properly addressed.

Senator VAN (Victoria) (11:32): I rise this morning to speak on the Royal Commissions Amendment (Confidentiality Protections) Bill 2020. While I and the government won't be supporting this legislation, we very much take very seriously violence against and the abuse, neglect and exploitation of people with a disability. That is why the Morrison government established the disability royal commission in the first place. All forms of violence against and abuse, neglect and exploitation of people with a disability are abhorrent. We as a society cannot allow it to happen and we must take action to eliminate it from our society.

This bill from Senator Steele-John comes after issues were raised by the chair of the royal commission, the Hon. Ronald Sackville, regarding the confidentiality of information given to that royal commission. The requested amendments to the act are so that people with a disability have assurance that their information is protected both during the life of the commission and after it has concluded its work. I thank Senator Steele-John for bringing this legislation forward. His passion and interest for the disability sector are undeniable. There is no denying that Senator Steele-John had the best interests of those providing evidence to the royal commission at heart when he introduced this legislation.

While I respect the senator's intentions in bringing forward this legislation, the legislation proposed is, unfortunately, inadequate to deal with all the subsequent issues raised by Commissioner Sackville. However, while we are not supporting this legislation, the Morrison government are committed to amending the Royal Commissions Act. These amendments will address specific matters raised by the chair about the confidentiality of information given to the royal commission and other broader matters not captured in this bill proposed by the Greens.

The government has listened to people with a disability and their families and carers, as well as the broader Australian public, about the importance of ensuring people have the confidence to come forward and tell their stories. As a result of these consultations and the request from the chair of the royal commission, the Morrison government will introduce its own legislation. Our bill will ensure that people with a disability will be able to engage with the royal commission in the certainty that their information will be protected. People with a disability are equal citizens and have the right to the full and equal enjoyment of all human rights and fundamental freedoms, including respect for their inherent dignity and individual autonomy.

We established the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability in April 2019, following community concerns about widespread reports of unacceptable and abhorrent transgressions against people with disabilities. Such transgressions are not acceptable in a modern Australia; they never were and never are going to be acceptable. Since the royal commission was established, it has received more than 1,900 submissions and more than 7½ thousand telephone inquiries and has held 10 public hearings. An 11th public hearing commences in Brisbane tomorrow. It is clear from the evidence the royal commission has received that the Morrison government was right to call that commission.

The outcomes of the commission will be guided by people's lived experiences and its outcomes must be based on a true reflection of those experiences. In order for the royal commission to fully realise the scope of its inquiry, it is important that the Australian community feels comfortable and supported in fully engaging with the royal commission. It is critical that people sharing their experiences with the royal commission feel respected and that survivors of violence, abuse, neglect and exploitation have their experiences appropriately acknowledged, recognised and validated, and the Morrison government is committed to ensuring that the disability royal commission does just that.

Prior to being elected to this place, I had significant experience with royal commissions. I have advised governments and businesses through four royal commissions, so I know from firsthand experience that royal commissions already have strong protections in place and can ensure that people can engage with confidence about the protection of information and identity. These mechanisms include the use of private sessions or the use of pseudonyms in public hearings and reports of the royal commission, or through the making of do-not-publish orders.

The government has listened to the royal commission, advocates and disability supporters. We understand that the existing protections may not give people the necessary confidence to come forward and tell their stories. While there are extensive protections after a royal commission has ended, we understand there may be some concerns about the willingness of some people to come forward in this royal commission. For many people with disability and their families and carers, telling their story to the royal commission may be the first time in their life that they have disclosed their experiences of violence, abuse, neglect or exploitation. For others, it is the first time their story has been heard by someone in a position of authority. We want those people to come forward. We want people to feel confident that, if and when they come forward, they will be protected. It is for this reason that the Morrison government is making changes to the Royal Commissions Act 1902 to further these protections. These further measures will ensure that people with disability and their supporters, advocates and families will be able to recount their experiences and fully participate in the royal commission. The amendment of the Royal Commissions Act by the Morrison government is proposed for the autumn sitting of this parliament this year. These amendments will go a long way to ensuring participants in the royal commission feel the information given to the inquiry is confidential and protected.

The last thing I or the Morrison government want to do is leave the disability community concerned that, because we're not supporting this legislation today, this means we're not listening to your concerns. We are 100 per cent committed to ensuring that you are listened to and that you feel supported.

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (11:39): The Royal Commissions Amendment (Confidentiality Protections) Bill 2020 is extremely important. It addresses issues that absolutely need to be addressed in terms of being able to guarantee that people have privacy and their evidence is confidential.Senator Van has just said that he's had a lot of experience with royal commissions and that in fact people will be protected. Well, they won't be. Senator Steele-John has carefully articulated why they won't be so protected by the legislation under which people are covered at the moment if they are considering making a contribution to the royal commission. What we're trying to achieve with this bill is to ensure that people are guaranteed confidentiality and privacy in perpetuity so that they have the confidence to bring their accounts of what happened to them to the royal commission, because at the moment they do not have that confidence. This bill is absolutely essential to give disabled people the confidence to bring their accounts of their treatment to the royal commission.

I chaired the Senate inquiry into violence, abuse and neglect against people with disability in institutional settings, and the accounts that we heard during that inquiry absolutely broke my heart. There were accounts of the sort of treatment that people received not only in residential facilities but in their homes, in schools and on school buses. In fact, for every setting where a disabled person was receiving care, we heard accounts of the mistreatment and abuse—sexual, physical and verbal as well—that disabled people received. People need to feel confident that they will be protected, and they are telling us, in particular telling Senator Steele-John, that that's not how they feel.

Those on the other side should actually listen to disabled people to hear what they are saying about their lack of confidence, to hear them say they are, I think it's fair to say, afraid to give evidence. These people have already been subjected to violence, neglect and abuse—and retribution. We also heard during the Senate inquiry about the retribution and the threatening behaviour that occurs if they dare to speak out, particularly if they are still in the institutions, still being provided some level of care. If Senator Steele-John thought this wasn't important, he wouldn't have brought this bill to the chamber. He would not be asking us to debate this bill if he had not heard firsthand accounts from disabled people saying this sort of protection is necessary. Why would we waste the Senate's time in debating something like this? It is of such grave importance that we have brought it to this place as a private senator's bill. To address violence against and abuse and neglect of disabled persons in this country, this bill is considered necessary by the very people for whom the royal commission is being held. I commend the bill to the Senate.

The PRESIDENT: The question is that the bill be read a second time.

The PRESIDENT (11:52): As no amendments to the bill have been circulated, I shall call the minister to move the third reading unless any senator requires that the bill be considered in Committee of the Whole.

Senator STEELE-JOHN (Western Australia) (11:52): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

The PRESIDENT: It being past 11.50, pursuant to the order agreed to earlier today, the Senate shall suspend until the ringing of the bells to allow senators to attend the Prime Minister's statement to mark the anniversary of the National Apology to the Stolen Generation.

Sitting suspended from 11:52 to 12:40

The CHAIR (12:58): The committee is considering the Aged Care Legislation Amendment (Serious Incident Response Scheme and Other Measures) Bill 2020.

Bill agreed to.

Bill reported without amendments; report adopted.

Senator COLBECK (Tasmania—Minister for Sport and Minister for Senior Australians and Aged Care Services) (12:59): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Senator PRATT (Western Australia) (12:59): This afternoon we are here to debate the National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Amendment (Technical Amendments) Bill 2020. In referring to this bill, whilst the government have put forward technical amendments, we should not in any way step away from the weight of the issues that victims of childhood sexual abuse within institutions have experienced and the profound nature and importance of this scheme and its effective operation in providing redress to those victims. The effective operation of this redress scheme has been left wanting to a considerable degree. And, sadly, the government's technical amendments to this scheme do not add a great deal of weight to addressing the problems in the functioning of the scheme and its ability to support victims.

In rising to give this speech, I move the second reading amendment circulated in my name:

At the end of the motion, add: ", but the Senate:

(a) notes the deficiencies in the Bill as drafted; and

(b) urges the Government to respond to calls from survivors to improve the National Redress Scheme and deliver quicker, fairer and better outcomes for recipients, as recommended by the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse".

Survivors of institutional child sexual abuse in our nation have already waited too long for redress. It's been two years since the national apology to survivors. We also know that the royal commission was launched nearly a decade ago, and that royal commission did substantial work towards the arrangements for the redress scheme. In looking at my participation in this legislation, both before I left the Senate in 2014 and when I resumed service in 2016, you can see that this issue has long been before the Senate.

When the royal commission was launched almost a decade ago, in 2012, Prime Minister Gillard said to victims of this abuse, 'We hear you; we believe you.' But the government and, indeed, this parliament also made a commitment that our words would be backed with action and a willingness to commit ourselves to action to deliver redress to victims of this abuse. Survivors have waited too long and have already been through so much. We made a commitment to deliver redress that was timely, redress that does not retraumatise and redress that does not leave survivors missing out. We have seen, in the 31 months since the commencement of this scheme, that a mere fraction of the projected number of survivors have received redress; indeed, a mere fraction have actually applied for redress. We can see that too many are waiting, many are ill, many are aged, some are dying and some have missed out altogether because the institutions that they were subjected to abuse within are not yet part of the scheme. They have been unable to join the scheme for legal reasons, which we will debate later, or have simply been unwilling to.

In my home state of Western Australia, one such example is Fairbridge. Child migrants were sent to Australia from the UK and Malta when they were small children, children who were told they were orphans—many of them were not orphans—children who were used and abused at this institution and who have no redress, as yet, within this scheme. These people, who were children at the time they suffered this abuse, were children hurt by the British programs of child migration. These were programs that stretched across a number of countries and in which children were sent away to unsafe and, indeed, unprotected and uncaring places around the globe.

There are other examples of victims who are unable to access redress because of the refusal of the Jehovah's Witnesses church to join the National Redress Scheme. I call on those within the Jehovah's Witnesses church to acknowledge that it would be right and just for them to join this scheme. I know the church has a strong doctrine where it seeks to put itself outside the law and simply operate according to the principles of its own faith, but I ask them: as a Christian institution, please step up and do the right thing. There are hundreds and thousands of followers of the Jehovah's Witnesses Church. We see their Kingdom Hall and their assets right around the country. I would call on you to make sure that justice is done for the victims of sexual abuse within your institutions.

It is time for us to get redress delivering on its promise for survivors. This is why Labor will be moving a series of amendments to address the longstanding structural and emerging issues within the National Redress Scheme. It's been a privilege for me to serve as a committee member of the Joint Select Committee on Implementation of the National Redress Scheme—I've only been serving in that role for a short time—because it takes brave victims to continue to tell their stories not only about the abuse that they suffered but also about how their experiences now intersect with the institutional and justice arrangements of the Redress Scheme. It is not easy for them, as the examples of victims within the Jehovah's Witness church, those from Fairbridge and others have shown. It is a scheme that has been rolled out by the government but, unfortunately, has not fully realised the recommendations of the royal commission. Frankly, it has failed to deliver on the redress that it promised victims.

Labor's amendments today seek to better reflect the experience of survivors and the spirit of the original recommendations that came out of the royal commission. I have to note that some of these issues were raised by Labor at the outset, in our original critique of the bill when it was first passed. Many of these issues were, indeed, foreseen and remained unaddressed at that time. But, of course, Labor did not want to get in the way. We supported the passing of the bill because we wanted to see the system get up and running so that it could serve victims' needs. Now we again have an opportunity to raise these issues. We hope that the government will support these amendments and respond accordingly and we call on it to do so. Our amendments today are essentially the same amendments that we moved to this legislation in the House. They are modest amendments that give the government the flexibility to negotiate with the states and territories and the latitude to fix the issues within the scheme in the most effective and efficient way.

These amendments also give the government the ability to take into account relevant findings from the review of the scheme. Mostly, it's simply a case of the government getting up and showing leadership and the conviction to back the needs of victims who deserve a functioning and accountable redress scheme. We call on the government to clearly say to survivors, to the public and, indeed, to this parliament what you will do to fix the substantial issues with the scheme or, at least, to explain why you won't fix it. This shouldn't be put into the too-hard basket. As I'll outline now, the changes that we have put forward don't jeopardise any aspect of the scheme. The opposition wants to say to the government, 'We want to work with you constructively to get the scheme actually delivering for survivors.'

It's important that the opposition acknowledge our position on the purpose of the bill, as the government has outlined in its technical amendments. We acknowledge that the bill puts forward administrative amendments. I won't go through those, because I have insufficient time. The royal commission said that an estimated 60,000 survivors would be eligible for redress. But as at January 2021 there were 9,232 applications, just under 5½ thousand decisions, 4,660 applications and 4,620 payments. These statistics represent just a fraction of those victims that should have access to the scheme. Many of the reasons that there aren't more applications come down to the onerous nature of making an application. It would take over 30 years for the estimated 60,000 victims to get redress if the current pace of making findings and giving out money were to be maintained. These delays are a form of further trauma. I look forward to being able to discuss our amendments further. (Time expired)

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (13:14): I rise to speak on the National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Amendment (Technical Amendments) Bill 2020. This bill makes a series of important technical amendments to the operation of the National Redress Scheme. The Greens are broadly supportive of this bill; however, we do have some concerns about the operation of these amendments, which we will monitor and on which I will make some comments now. First off, we have concerns around associate institutions. This bill changes the way associate institutions in a group are determined, listed and described for notices and offers of redress. Under these changes, survivors will no longer be provided with a full list of associates of participating institutions when they accept or reject an offer of redress.

During the inquiry of the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee into this bill, stakeholders raised concerns that these changes could have unintended consequences for survivors. The national community legal service knowmore highlighted that it is important that survivors understand which institutions they will be releasing from civil liability if they accept an offer of redress. Stakeholders suggested alternative ways the full list of associate institutions could be provided to survivors—for example, the scheme operator could allow survivors to request this information in writing, associates of participating institutions could be identified on the Redress Scheme's website, or a full list could be provided to survivors earlier in the application process.

The Greens will be monitoring the implementation of these changes closely to ensure that survivors continue to be provided with information about associates of participating institutions and are able to make informed decisions about redress offers. I would note here that, if this isn't working, there will inevitably be more amendments to this bill once the independent assessor's report is provided to the government and the necessary amendments, which we all know will need to be made, are debated. We put the government on notice that, if this particular amendment is not working, we'll be seeking amendments to it again.

Under the current Redress Scheme, government institutions can become funders of last resort—for example, where non-government institutions no longer exist. The current Redress Scheme assumes that only one government institution will be involved as a funder of last resort. This bill makes changes to clarify that one or more participating government institutions can become funders of last resort. Some stakeholders expressed concerns that this change could lead to further delays for survivors seeking redress. The Australian Greens strongly echo these concerns and urge the scheme operator to ensure these changes do not result in further delays for survivors. I will have more to say on this issue shortly.

Engaging independent decision-makers is another area that this bill amends. At the moment, the appointment of each independent decision-maker must be approved by the Minister for Families and Social Services in consultation with state and territory ministers. This bill, instead, will allow the scheme operator to appoint decision-makers in consultation with states and territories. It is expected this change may reduce delays experienced by survivors on the decision of their application. Legal firm Ryan Carlisle Thomas noted that devolving responsibility to the scheme operator would not provide sufficient scrutiny for the appointment of decision-makers. Again, we will be monitoring the implications of the implementation of this new appointment process very closely.

The commencement of the National Redress Scheme in 2018 represented a milestone for survivors of institutional child sexual abuse. However, this legislation was flawed from the beginning—make no mistake. The Greens sought to amend it at the time. If people recall, we were coming up to the deadline for when the legislation would come into effect. Unfortunately, if we'd delayed the legislation any longer then that would have delayed redress for survivors. So it was a catch-22 situation, where we knew the legislation was flawed but we didn't want to disappoint survivors. We are now dealing with the consequences. The proposed amendments, which were debated in this very chamber, would have avoided some of the issues we are dealing with right now. We'll certainly need changes in response to the independent assessor's two-yearly review of the scheme, and some of those changes will need to address the issues that were raised in 2018.

We all know that the Redress Scheme is not as good as it could be. There are many issues that need to be fixed urgently. As a member of the Joint Select Committee on the Implementation of the National Redress Scheme, I've been made aware, yet again, of many of these issues. The committee's first interim report found that the National Redress Scheme application process can retraumatise survivors. Preparing an application is often a stressful and traumatic experience for survivors. It can take months for survivors to finalise their application because they are retraumatised—their trauma is triggered—by actually filling out the form. The lack of published guidelines for decision-making limits the ability of survivors and their advocates to understand what should be included in their application. Survivors continue to experience long waiting times—although I do acknowledge that the department is working to get this under control, and it has improved for certain applications. It's just not good enough that survivors can have their civil claims resolved in a shorter time than it takes to get a redress application completed. We need to make urgent reforms to the application process to ensure that it does not further harm and traumatise survivors.

I continue to hold serious concerns about the government's $150,000 cap on redress payments. As we in this place all know, the royal commission actually recommended a $200,000 cap on redress payments, which the government rejected. The lower cap may be a reason for survivors to pursue civil actions instead of going through the Redress Scheme. Lawyers have suggested that civil actions result in awards of hundreds of thousands of dollars, compared with the average redress payment of around $80,000.

The practice of indexing payments is unfair and needs to be reformed. Over 449 payments have been adjusted due to prior payments, with the average value of the adjustment being $34,574. Some survivors have also had their redress payments reduced to zero because of indexation. The indexation of payments needs to be removed immediately.

There are also significant gaps in survivors getting access to counselling and psychological care services and supports. These include gaps around access in rural areas, access to culturally safe and sensitive healing programs and access to specialist financial counselling. The government has put time limits and monetary caps on access to counselling and psychological services, which goes against the royal commission's recommendations. All survivors and their families should be able to engage with high-quality, specialised counselling and psychological care services in order to address their trauma and to limit the retraumatisation, as I've just articulated, that is occurring through the process.

The funder-of-last-resort provisions continue to let survivors down, as they are too restrictive. This was articulated in this place during the debate on the primary legislation. These issues were addressed during that discussion. We sought to amend the legislation but, unfortunately, those amendments weren't supported. These provisions need to be amended. I'm sure that when we see the report of independent assessor's review we will need to come back and readdress the funder-of-last-resort issue. Under the current scheme, the government can become a funder of last resort for institutions that no longer exist, known as defunct institutions. But these provisions apply only when the government has supposedly equal responsibility for the abuse that occurred in the now defunct institution. The government should be a funder of last resort regardless of whether or not it was involved in the institution or had responsibility for the child when they were abused. Survivors shouldn't miss out on payments because of these narrow provisions.

As of October 2020 there were 88 applications for redress that named funder-of-last-resort institutions, but only 29 of these applications had been determined. Of these, only 20 payments had been made. It's clear that the funder-of-last-resort provisions are preventing significant numbers of survivors from accessing redress. The government needs to consider how we can expand the funder-of-last-resort provisions to ensure that all survivors have equal access to redress and don't experience unfair waiting times.

It is distressing that some institutions, including those named in the royal commission, have not yet joined the National Redress Scheme, even though they have been named. While these institutions have been publicly named and shamed, they continue to drag their feet. We need to consider the impact this is having on survivors who feel distress and feel like they have nowhere to go.

I appreciate that the minister is taking these issues seriously and that we are making progress on compelling institutions to join the scheme. But, as was just articulated, the Jehovah's Witnesses still have not joined. It is outrageous that they do not accept responsibility for the children who were abused in their care. We need to think about ways that we can work together to take all possible actions to ensure the institutions are held to account. It is imperative that the government takes every possible action against these institutions which fail to uphold their moral, social and ethical responsibilities by declining or unnecessarily delaying their participation in the scheme.

The second-anniversary review of the National Redress Scheme is, hopefully, just about complete. I am confident that this independent review will make clear recommendations on how we can improve the Redress Scheme. I'm confident of that because I'm sure that the survivors—in particular, those who have been giving their comments and evidence to the review—will be voicing their very strong concerns about the failings of the Redress Scheme. If they are listened to, there will need to be recommendations made about amendments. It's especially important that the review looks into publishing the assessment framework policy guidelines, streamlining applicant and decision-making processes and creating a direct complaint avenue for survivors. The Australian Greens will continue to closely monitor the outcomes of this review and push for change so that the Redress Scheme supports all survivors and holds all institutions to account.

Senator DEAN SMITH (Western Australia—Government Whip in the Senate) (13:27): I also rise this afternoon to make some comments in regard to the National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Amendment (Technical Amendments) Bill 2020. Of course, this bill deals with some technical amendments.

I think every senator is beholden—and Senator Siewert did mention this briefly—to acknowledge the work and the progress that is already happening in the National Redress Scheme. I think it's important to say this at the very, very, very beginning. I've heard comments made about the royal commission's report and recommendations, and I'll reflect on two observations about the royal commission's outcomes that have not actually been reflected in the experience of the scheme.

I want to reiterate that at 31 December 2020, just three months ago, 450 institutions, covering over 60,600 sites had in fact signed up. The scheme had received 9,117 applications. There had been 4,350 payments made to survivors, totalling $377 million, and a further 540 offers were awaiting a decision by the applicants themselves. So let's just put that in context: in the first year of the scheme, 47 institutions had joined; in the second year of the scheme, this number had grown by 176; and, in the third year of the scheme, it had grown by another 223 institutions.

I'm someone who believes publicly and privately that the National Redress Scheme is working, is growing and is making the necessary progress that many of us had hoped it would make. Is there an opportunity for continued improvement? Yes, there most definitely is. I'm someone who believes that the scheme will always be and should always be in a state of constant recalibration. If it is to be responsive to the needs, the interests and the concerns of survivors—as shared with government and parliamentarians via survivors themselves and survivor groups—then it must be, and we must recognise that it will be, in a constant state of recalibration and improvement.

There were two observations made by the royal commission that I do think need to be reflected upon. One is that the royal commission—and it's not an error or a fault of the royal commission; it couldn't see the future—overestimated the number of applications that the National Redress Scheme would get. It overestimated the number of applications the scheme would receive. What the royal commission didn't foresee was the complexity of those applications, and I see Senator Siewert, if I may, nodding in agreement with my observation. I think this is a very important point to be mentioned upfront, because, when we came to designing the scheme, it was designed with a variety of assumptions—and this is a reflection of the good work that the royal commission and senators in this place and other parliamentarians contributed to—but those early observations may not be the experience of the scheme thus far. On those two points, I think that's very true: the number of applications received has not been as great as the royal commission expected, but the complexity of those applications has been greater. That was not foreseen by the royal commission. This is a particularly important point when people come into the chamber and say, 'Well, the royal commission was expecting X but the scheme has only delivered Y, and therefore the scheme is unsuccessful.' Not true. The second point I would make is that, as the scheme develops and matures, different sorts of survivor groups and their needs come to the fore more sharply. I'll reflect on this a little bit later in my contribution. There are two particular groups that I think require much greater and urgent attention, and I'll come to those in a brief moment.

Labor is moving a variety of amendments. These amendments, as Senator Pratt alluded to, were moved in the House of Representatives. Let me be very clear about this: these are amendments that ignore a critical feature of the scheme, and that is that the scheme is actually not a Commonwealth scheme. It is in fact a scheme in which the Commonwealth is working in cooperation with the states and territories. So whatever our views in this parliament might be about what changes and improvements should be made to the scheme, they have to be agreed to by the relevant ministers in states and territories. I think that is a good design feature, but it does present some challenges where particular jurisdictions might have a view that other jurisdictions don't hold onto.

The other point I would make in regard to Labor's amendments, if I've understood them correctly, is that they actually don't make any real changes and many of these matters are already under active review by the independent reviewer Robyn Kruk and, as Senator Siewert alluded to, the committee which I chair, the Joint Select Committee on Implementation of the National Redress Scheme. We are hoping to see that report ourselves very soon, to make our own judgements about how effective the independent review process has been on collecting and identifying further improvements to and recalibrations of the scheme.

Much of the credit, I believe, for getting so many institutions to join the scheme must go to the very clear commitment of the Morrison government and its forthrightness in following through on its justified threat to name and shame institutions and to strip them of their tax and charitable benefits. But now is the time to refocus our efforts on two specific survivor groups whose access to justice, in my view, has been blocked. Both of these groups, of course, have a strong Western Australian character.

In my view—and I think I probably speak for many on the parliamentary committee—redress must now be urgently delivered to those Fairbridge kids who were among the 3,580 British child migrants sent to the Kingsley Fairbridge Farm School near Pinjarra between 1913 and 1982. The original Fairbridge ceased operating in the early 1980s, when it was rolled into the Prince's Trust. That organisation has established Fairbridge Restored Ltd to act as the legal entity responsible for meeting the liabilities of Fairbridge farm schools. While Fairbridge Restored was publicly named last year for its failure to join the scheme, we now understand that its reluctance was due to legal barriers in the United Kingdom rather than a lack of willingness or good faith on its part. That is evidence that has been made available to the parliamentary committee, and again I see Senator Siewert nodding. But it's clear to me and to others in the Senate chamber that the unique and unforeseen circumstances surrounding Fairbridge kids warrant special attention. It is reassuring to know that this is a view that is also shared by the National Redress Scheme, with the secretary of the Department of Social Services having described the matter at a public hearing as having a 'sense of urgency' and noting that they are very committed to resolving this issue 'as quickly as we can', as the secretary said.

The second priority in 2021 must be to improve the level of awareness of and access to the scheme for Indigenous survivors. We know that there are factors, including poor understanding of the scheme in regional and remote areas, access to records and historical documentation, and even a reluctance to ask questions out of fear of being judged, that are preventing greater Indigenous participation and therefore access to justice. There can also be cultural unwillingness to detail accounts of historic childhood sexual abuse which is stopping many older Indigenous survivors from even starting an application.

Late last year, the committee heard from the CEO of the Kimberley Stolen Generation Aboriginal Corporation, who detailed for the committee key areas where the scheme could be improved to better address the needs of Indigenous Australians, including increased access to culturally appropriate support in remote communities. In evidence to a parliamentary committee, the Kimberley Stolen Generation Aboriginal Corporation noted:

Aboriginal people don't see counselling the same way non-Indigenous people do … That's not what works for them and it's not culturally appropriate for them either.

Of the 3,123 applications for redress received between July 2019 and June 2020, 1,052 were from Indigenous survivors, representing 34 per cent of all applications for that period. When I was in the Kimberley region just a few weeks ago, I had an opportunity to meet with the Kimberley Stolen Generation Aboriginal Corporation. They reiterated to me their very, very strong view that more could be done to provide better access, and therefore justice, for Indigenous Australians but that there was a plan and that they had some excellent ideas about how that could be done. People should not be denied access to the scheme because they live in remote areas of our country.

When I was reviewing the contributions of members of the House of Representatives over the weekend in preparation for some remarks today, I realised you could come to the wrong conclusion. That wrong conclusion is that nothing is happening in regard to national redress. Nothing could be further from the truth; a lot is happening. The timeliness has improved; indeed, the investment by the Australian government of an additional $104 million over the next four years is timely and is necessary. But we should not allow ourselves to fall asleep at this particular wheel. More must be done. More can be done. I would hasten to add that my considered sense is that across the parliament, in the Department of Social Services—who are responsible for the National Redress Scheme—and in the community there is a great willingness and a great sense of urgency to make sure that justice can be delivered in the most timely and effective way for survivors and for their families.

I will leave those brief remarks there. Finally, I extend the appreciation of not just the joint parliamentary committee but also all those people who have come into contact with the National Redress Scheme and have had a good experience to officers in the Department of Social Services and the National Redress Scheme for the important work they do on this very, very important matter.

Senator LINES (Western Australia—Deputy President and Chair of Committees) (13:39): Thank you, Senator Dean Smith, for your ongoing strong advocacy on behalf of survivors. In my first speech in this parliament and several times since then I have indicated that my father was sent to Australia. He was in a home for children in Birmingham in the United Kingdom. He ended up at Fairbridge, as Senator Smith knows. He came out at the age of 12.

He wasn't one of the children who didn't know who his family was. Indeed, he came from a very large family. His mother had taken up with a new man who didn't want the existing children that were in the family, so my father and his brother, my uncle Arthur, were put in the Birmingham children's home, despite the fact that they grew up in Coventry. My father has passed away now but, thankfully, because of the British government's actions in saying sorry, he was able to go back to the UK and meet with his family. They, of course, always knew that he was missing. He met for the first time a sister who hadn't been born when he left, but she knew all about her brother Bill and her brother Arthur, who had been sent to Fairbridge.

There's no doubt that my father's life at Fairbridge was very harsh. There's no doubt about that. Uncle Arthur's life at Fairbridge was harsh as well. My father was spared the reported abuse that did occur at Fairbridge, but he knew other children from Fairbridge who gave evidence to the royal commission of the abuse that they had suffered. So I've got a personal stake in this matter.

It is rather ironic today that we've just had the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition give their comments around Sorry Day. We heard from Minister Ken Wyatt and our shadow minister Ms Linda Burney. The flavour of all of those speeches was that we are sorry for what happened to the stolen generations in this country—horrific times. Yet comments were also made that it had taken too long. Often on matters we are poles apart, but on this matter we are not. I think for the survivors of sexual abuse, despite the best intentions, it is still taking too long. Sadly, as the time goes by, survivors start to pass away. That's the case for my father and Uncle Arthur.

Uncle Arthur, sadly, never got the chance to go back and meet his UK family, who clearly loved both Uncle Arthur and my family. To see the resemblance, to see where my dad grew up, to see the schools he went to and to see the pub that my grandparents drank at—all those sorts of things that are part of everyday life—were denied to him. That was really important. I'm still sad that Uncle Arthur never got that chance.

The royal commission estimated that some 60,000 survivors would be eligible for redress. Certainly we don't want to see survivors waiting any longer than necessary. Other contributors have gone through that we have received less than that, but of course there's great shame about being sexually abused. Not every person who has been abused is going to come forward. That's the shame of it. We need to be making a scheme that makes it easier for people, not harder. We need to create a framework that's robust and transparent and where moneys are accountable, but one that is not onerous for people to come forward, put their hand up and claim the redress that they are so justly and fairly entitled to.

The scheme has received nearly 10,000 applications. It has made about 5½ thousand decisions. It's finalised 4,600-odd applications, and the moneys to date are just under $4 million. But we know there are 512 applications on hold, waiting on institutions to join the scheme. This is unacceptable, and we've heard from contributors to this debate this morning that it is unacceptable. There's no doubt that the laws and our society and our culture at the time enabled this sexual abuse to happen, and we do need to not allow institutions to remain outside of the scheme. If they're a named institution and sexual abuse has occurred, they must be part of the redress.

Certainly one of the amendments that Labor will seek to move later today is a requirement that the minister does name and shame these institutions who refuse to join the scheme. I know that the minister's been very strong on naming and shaming, but we do want it to be a requirement, because, as time goes on, ministers change and so on and so forth. It is shameful that we've had to get to the point where we've had to threaten institutions who clearly have not done the right thing that they'll be named and shamed and that their tax allowances and so on will be under question. It is shameful that we've had to really go in hard like that, but, nevertheless, let's put the victims before the institutions and be very clear that we want to see that it is a requirement, because, really, we don't want survivors, who've suffered enough, to be waiting any longer than absolutely necessary before they get what they are so justly entitled to. There's no doubt that there's the action of the abuse itself and then, of course, there's that ongoing impact, where you still see people in their 60s and 70s breaking down and feeling ashamed about what happened to them when they were young children. That's an amendment that Labor's keen to pursue. These aren't new amendments that have suddenly arisen today; they have been the view of Labor for a very long time.

We also want to see the cap increase. Our view has been, right from when we heard the evidence, that the cap ought to be increased from the current amount of $150,000 up to $200,000, because what we believe is happening is that survivors are being pushed into civil processes, and that undermines the scheme in and of itself—if the scheme is seen by some to be inadequate because the cap is too low. You want to have the redress to civil processes there but being the exception, in rare circumstances. We don't want it to be used increasingly because people are not satisfied that receiving the full cap amount, currently of $150,000, is inadequate. We think it ought to be up to $200,000, and this is an opportunity, with Labor's amendment, for the government to actually do the right thing.

We do have an amendment that looks at the indexation of prior payments. It is heartbreaking to hear the stories of people who get barely any redress once a tiny payment from years ago is indexed. It's fair to say state governments, and institutions themselves, have had a number of goes at this trying to get it right. Now we're at the point where we've got amendments that we say will make it right, and we really do want to see them taken up.

The issue of funders of last resort has certainly been around for a while. There are some institutions—Fairbridge doesn't neatly fit the issue. Senator Smith went into its various iterations, but we do need governments in whatever form, whether it's the Commonwealth or the states, to be funders of last resort. We can't have survivors left high and dry because their institution no longer operates, through no fault of their own, when clearly redress is needed. We do believe that that should be something that happens as a matter of course. Our amendment, if it gets up, will seek to ensure that governments act as funders of last resort when people would have otherwise missed out. I don't think it's the intention of the government or anyone in this place that people miss out. That's not the intention behind this amendment. It's just us saying we really do need it to be shored up.

We also want—again, this is not new—the government to consider the establishment of an advanced payment scheme. As I said earlier—and, no doubt, other senators have said—we have people ageing out. We see that all the time. With claims that go back a generation or 20 or 30 years, lawyers can play fancy games in civil proceedings to time matters out, and a person then dies. We are saying that, with an advance payment, you would get the bulk of the moneys upfront, so they are of use to the person, who finally gets some money and a public acknowledgment of the hurt and suffering that they endured. They would get the bulk of those moneys upfront, which they can use in whatever way they see fit.

There's a similar scheme currently being used in Scotland, and that's been well received by survivors over there. Given the decades and years that many survivors have waited for a chance at redress and justice, it's vital that people don't die waiting. Again, as I said, that's certainly not the government's intention. I don't want anyone to be under the misapprehension that that's what Labor's saying. We just think it's an additional measure—that we can give a person an advance payment. So that's what we're seeking with that amendment.

Our amendments, as I said, are nothing new. They have been around a good while, and we really do want the government to consider them in a serious manner and to be able to agree to them. And there is that issue of the indexation.

The redress assessment matrix has also been widely criticised. Again, we start with an idea. If it doesn't work properly, then let's look at it and review it and get something that does. We know that many survivors need counselling and psychological care from time to time throughout their lives. Certainly we heard this in evidence. The evidence that I heard at one of the Senate inquiries—and Senator Smith mentioned First Nations people, too—is to make that counselling available through a survivor's life. As a victim, as you go through the various stages of grief, of anger and of coming to terms with issues, new issues will come up. All of us who have experienced trauma know that there will be a moment, when you're really doing nothing, and suddenly it all comes and hits you. That could be five years after the whole affair, or it could be 20 years or 30 years. There's no doubt, if we accept there's long-term impact and damage, then we've got to accept that counselling ought be available throughout a victim's life. I think it's one of the least things that we can do. We need to establish a benchmark—a safety net, if you like—that really does capture, protect and enhance the rights of survivors in whatever way we can. I want to be part of a parliament that does that—that we honour and we continue to honour survivors of sexual abuse by institutions.

Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (13:54): I thank all senators who have made a contribution to the debate on the National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Amendment (Technical Amendments) Bill 2020 and acknowledge the multipartisan way in which everybody in this chamber has approached this very, very serious issue and the response that we, as a parliament, want to provide. This bill seeks to amend the primary legislation for the scheme. The bill proposes to increase the efficiency of the scheme for its remaining eight years of operation and to make sure that we assist in finalising outstanding applications. The amendments address minor and technical issues with the current operation of the act and will address unintended consequences or oversights in the initial drafting of the primary legislation underpinning this scheme. Consistent with the survivor focus of the scheme, survivor groups support the passage of this bill, as does the Standing Committee on Community Affairs. In accordance with the scheme's governance arrangements, all jurisdictions have supported the progression of the bill, and they are required to be consulted on and approve all future changes to the redress act, due to the cooperative basis under which this scheme continues to operate.

Regardless of the amendments that are being brought forward to this bill, I do acknowledge a very, very strong shared desire to continue to improve this scheme. The bill adds to the strong improvements that have already been put in place for the scheme, and the government remains committed to improving the scheme and encouraging all institutions that have been named to join the scheme. Pleasingly, the government has already been at work, and 191 institutions have joined the scheme in its third year of operation. The number has grown through the use of the naming and shaming of recalcitrant institutions. The government has already implemented measures to name and shame institutions that fail to sign up to the scheme and financial penalties for those that fail to join the scheme. These two levers come into force six months after the first meaningful contact with the institution, once it has been named.

The Morrison government has also commenced the legislated two-year review, which is currently being undertaken by Robyn Kruk AO. The report has a focus on all aspects raised in the shadow minister's amendments and incorporates extensive consultation with survivors. This report will be made public. Changes of this nature would need to be endorsed by the redress board, which comprises state and territory ministers, meaning the amendments would be unlikely to be implemented, regardless of their passage through this place. As such, the government do not support these amendments, and we remain committed to the continuous improvement of this scheme and making sure that survivors continue to inform the decisions around any changes to the scheme.

In response specifically to the amendments that have been put forward, I would say that, in relation to the naming and shaming amendment, clearly we have done everything that we said we would do. We named and shamed the institutions on 1 July last year, and, pleasingly, on 1 January this year we didn't have to name or shame any other institutions. If in the future we find institutions that have a responsibility or a moral obligation under this scheme to join the scheme, we will name and shame those organisations if they do not do the right thing by survivors. As I said, we have taken real and tangible action against those organisations by making sure that, through consultation, we have in process—and, hopefully, it will be gazetted very soon—the revoking of the charitable status of all organisations that refuse to join the scheme. As the federal government, we have also said that we will not allow any institution that has not joined the scheme but should join the scheme to ever be eligible for any government grants. I'm pleased to say that many of the states and territories are currently in the process of making sure that that is also the case for the grants that are issued through state and territory grant processes.

The two-year review is currently underway, and I want to make sure that we are seeking the advice of survivors so that any response that we make to the review is absolutely informed by survivors themselves. We do not want to pre-empt the review, despite the genuineness of the amendments that are before us today. In principle, the government has no issue with the sentiment of the amendments put forward by the opposition today. But we want to make sure that the two-year review that's currently being undertaken is allowed to take its course. It is due to report at the end of this month, only a few weeks from now. As I said, we will make this report publicly available for everybody to see. Through the appropriate process of the national redress board, I will then take this to the redress board, a cross-government initiative made up of the ministers of all the states and territories and the federal government, to make sure we are deliver the redress that Australian survivors of institutional child sex abuse so rightfully deserve.

The PRESIDENT: It being 2 pm, we will move to questions without notice.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Carol Brown ) (18:54): The President has received a letter requesting a change in the membership of a committee.

Senator HUME (Victoria—Minister for Superannuation, Financial Services and the Digital Economy) (18:56): by leave—I move:

That senators be discharged from and appointed to the Joint Standing Committee on Northern Australia as follows:

On 19 February 2021—

Discharged—Senator Siewert

Appointed—Senator Thorpe

On 20 February 2021—

Discharged—Senator Thorpe

Appointed—Senator Siewert.

Question agreed to.

Senator HUME (Victoria—Minister for Superannuation, Financial Services and the Digital Economy) (18:56): I move:

That this bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a first time.

Senator HUME (Victoria—Minister for Superannuation, Financial Services and the Digital Economy) (18:57): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard.

Leave granted.

The speech read as follows—

The Financial Sector Reform (Hayne Royal Commission Response No. 2) Bill 2020 continues to fulfil the Government's commitment to implement the recommendations from the Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry.

Schedule 1 to the Bill will implement recommendation 2.1 by enhancing the framework governing the provision of financial advice to clients under ongoing fee arrangements to address Commissioner Hayne's concerns about fees for no service conduct. Under the legislation:

the client will, each year, receive a forward-looking summary of the fees they will be charged and the services they will be entitled to receive, in addition to the existing disclosure of fees and services;

the fee recipient will need to obtain the client's express written authority prior to arranging the deduction of fees from an account held in the client's name; and

ongoing fee arrangements will relate to the same period each year.

Schedule 2 to the Bill implements recommendation 2.2 by introducing a new disclosure obligation to ensure that financial advisers who are not 'independent' in relation to the provision of personal advice, are required to provide their clients with a clear and concise written disclaimer that outlines that they are not independent and explains the reasons why.

Schedule 3 to the Bill implements recommendations 3.2 and 3.3 by prohibiting the deduction of ongoing advice fees from MySuper products and increasing the transparency of fees to members.

Collectively, these reforms represent a critical component of restoring trust and confidence in Australia's financial system.

Full details of these measures are contained in the Explanatory Memorandum.

Debate adjourned

Senator STERLE (Western Australia) (19:00): The Export Control Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2020 amends the Export Control Act and is designed to support the implementation of the new export control framework. The amendment seeks to clarify the circumstances where a fit and proper person test is required for an application to vary registration of an establishment or to approve an alteration of an establishment. The amendment also expands the discretion of the secretary with respect to export permits. There is no doubt that Australia's previous legislative framework for agricultural production and certification of exports was overly complex—in fact, there were 17 acts. However, farmers and this parliament must remember that the act we are seeking to amend here today was initially introduced to the House on 7 December 2017, but lapsed. The act did not pass until March 2020.

The failure to prioritise reforming the agricultural export framework is indicative of this government's attitude to farmers. They claim they are the government for farmers, but they are leaving our primary producers behind. Labor is glad that the government has finally decided to take steps to assist farmers with gaining and maintaining access to markets. However, farmers have been waiting for seven years for this government to do something for them. The minister has claimed that the new export framework is designed to ensure that Australia has appropriate regulatory settings to enable exports to grow and to help drive productivity and increase returns at the farm gate. But if the minister really cared about supporting the growth of agricultural exports and increasing productivity, he would not have abandoned farmers during this pandemic or waited three years to deliver this—for want of a better word—better framework.

Regional communities and our farmers have experienced extreme droughts. They've experienced floods. They've experienced bushfires and now a global pandemic. And if all that weren't enough, Australian agriculture's most high-volume and high-value market is under serious threat. Australian agricultural producers and exporters must be wondering: where are these new markets that Mr Littleproud promised? The answer is: Mr Littleproud doesn't know, because he hasn't put in the work. After three years of failing to legislate this new framework, it is not good enough that, when faced with the loss of high-volume and high-value markets, Mr Littleproud wiped his hands clean of the issue and told producers it wasn't his problem. To add insult to injury, despite the myriad challenges facing the agricultural sector, all this minister has to offer to deliver a $100 billion agricultural sector is a few dot points on a page. Farmers need and deserve more than a few dot points on a media release and obfuscation of responsibility. Farmers need the Liberal-National government to actually deliver outcomes, not just say they will. Mr Littleproud has been absent throughout this pandemic. He has refused to work with states to deliver the agricultural workers the sector so desperate needs. All this minister has managed to do is to pull together a workers' code that couldn't pass muster with chief health officers, and then blame the states when it didn't work.

Talk is extraordinarily cheap, and our farmers are suffering. Farmers deserve a government that will prioritise legislation designed to support the sector's growth. Labor supports growing agriculture to $100 billion by 2030, but we need a comprehensive plan to get there. A few dot points on a media release simply isn't good enough.

Senator STEELE-JOHN (Western Australia) (19:05): I rise, in the metaphorical sense, this evening to make some contributions in relation to the Export Control Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2020. The bill makes amendments to the Export Control Act 2020 and seeks to do a couple of different things: clarify the operation of the fit and proper person test when verifying the registration of export establishments; provide greater flexibility in the requirements for lodging a notice of intention to export; enable the rules relevant to providing guidance in relation to the approval of export permits; enable the rules to modify the provisions of the act and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 in relation to the review of the tariff rate quota certificate decisions; and, enable the rules to incorporate matters contained in agreements between Australia and other countries that relate to tariff rate quotas.

The Greens have a couple of serious concerns with the bill. While this bill claims to make minor, largely technical, amendments, the provisions which allow for changes to Export Control Act 2020 and the AAT Act are actually quite significant in nature. The function of these provisions is to limit the scope of the types of decisions that the AAT can make when reviewing tariff rate quota, TRQ, certificates. We are primarily concerned about the implication of narrowing the recourse for exporters to challenge the outcome of a review on their TRQ certificates. The aspect we are least comfortable with is the fact that this bill is seeking to constrain the types of decisions that both the AAT and the department secretary can make and are reviewable in relation to TRQ certificates. They will not be able to make decisions on TRQ certificates where Australia has reached its tariff rate quota for any particular goods.

The implication we fear is that the context of this bill is primarily concerned with agricultural exports, and smaller, less powerful, less connected agricultural exporters risk being locked out of accessing and appealing TRQ certificate decisions where bigger exporters have been able to get access to them first. In principle, limiting the recourse for decisions made by government departments, where the department is empowered to make decisions on whether one private company can earn money over another, is of significant concern. As stated by the minister in response to the report of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills:

It is proposed that rules under section 386 of the Act, as amended by the Bill, will be made in equivalent terms to the current Export Control (Tariff Rate Quotas) Order 2019, which prevents a person making a decision to overturn an initial decision if there is an insufficient amount of quota available at that time. This means there will be no change to the current administration of tariff rate quota certificates or impact on related trade agreements.

While we acknowledge that this bill seeks to retain the status quo for how TRQ certificates are administered, we are taking a principled decision not to support the provisions which allow for regulations to make changes to the original Export Control Act and the AAT Act. We see that they limit the capacity of individuals or entities to access a fair hearing when a review of decisions is limited in scope. This issue was raised at the level of the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills, and we do not see that the minister's response satisfactorily accounts for this provision.

The amendments which we will move are very simple. We are seeking to remove items 9 to 13 of this bill, which will allow for the modification of the Export Control Act 2020 and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975. The function of our amendments is to ensure that exporters seeking to challenge the decisions around TRQ certificates and entitlements have access to the full extent of available recourse.

In closing I will reflect upon a very fine speech made in this chamber during the last sitting by Senator Carr, a distinguished and long-term member of this place. Senator Carr made a very compelling argument that, unless there was a very well articulated case made by the government and the Public Service—by the department—that legislative ability be put beyond the review or intervention of this chamber, such an act should not be taken. I will quote directly from the Bills Digest in relation to the comments made by the scrutiny of bills committee:

The Committee further stated that its concerns were heightened by the fact that the modifications may be in relation to review of decisions, and may therefore affect an individual's right to a fair hearing. It requested advice from the Minister as to why the provisions are considered necessary and appropriate, the circumstances in which it is envisioned the powers will be used, and whether they may trespass on the right to a fair hearing.

At the time of the production of the Bills Digest, the minister had not even deigned to answer. The answers that were subsequently given went in no way far enough to justify such a potential risk. In addition, the scrutiny of bills committee expressed concerns about the amendments which enabled delegated legislation to modify primary legislation. If I remember rightly, that was another key point made by Senator Carr in the previous sitting. The committee stated that such provisions, referred to as Henry VIII clauses, 'impact on the level of parliamentary scrutiny and may subvert the appropriate relationship between the parliament and the executive'. As such, the committee expected a sound justification for the use of a Henry VIII clause to be provided in the explanatory memorandum.

In this instance, the explanatory memorandum provides no justification as to why it is necessary and appropriate for rules to modify the operation of the act or the AAT Act. There's been no justification as to why they are necessary. In the absence of such a justification, I put it to the Senate that the only responsible legislative course of action is to remove such provisions, and that is what our amendments will seek to do. In the absence of the adoption of these amendments, we will proceed to vote against the bill, on the principle that such action should not be taken by the legislature without the relevant justification being made. We must draw a line in relation to the systemic, what now seems to be perpetual, undermining of this legislature. It is not out of any attempt to retain a sense of prestige or ego in ourselves but out of an acknowledgement that we are here, on behalf of our community, to do the work of scrutiny.

We are a house of review, so we should never, without good cause, diminish our ability to review. This legislation does that. Based on some evidence the department gave to the relevant committee, this is justified on the basis of removing unnecessary administrative burden upon the department. There was a not dissimilar argument made a couple of weeks back in relation to the trade legislation, which prompted Senator Carr's contribution. This argument that basically having to do your job—having to put a bit of work in, having to do the admin—is a justification for undermining the legislative purview of Australia's ultimate chamber of review should be roundly rejected as nonsense, absolute nonsense. So, as I said, should the amendments that we will offer fail to gain the support of the Senate, we shall vote against the legislation.

Senator McMAHON (Northern Territory) (19:16): I rise to speak on the Export Control Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2020. This bill is important as it will help modernise Australia's trade environment and ensure our farmers have continued and reliable access to overseas markets. The bill will amend the Export Control Act to make sure that it is fit for purpose. It will streamline and consolidate existing export controls. The bill will make five amendments to the act. Firstly, it will clarify the application of the fit-and-proper-person test to vary a registration of, or to approve an alteration of, an establishment. Secondly, it will enable the Secretary of the Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment to make rules to enable a notice of intention to export a consignment of prescribed goods to be approved or refused. Thirdly, it will enable the secretary to make rules to prescribe requirements for determining whether to issue an export permit. Fourthly, it will modify how certain provisions apply to reviews of decisions for tariff rate quotas. Finally, it will clarify which instruments may be incorporated into the framework to calculate the tariff rate quotas for goods. Our farmers, producers and agricultural exporters are the lifeblood of our nation, and they must be provided with an environment that is easy to navigate and one that allows them to thrive, particularly in COVID, and hopefully post-COVID, environments.

This bill is particularly important to the Northern Territory, where our two biggest agricultural products, cattle and mangoes, have large export markets. We have a good reputation for high-quality produce. We can't compete on price—Labor and the unions have seen to that. We can't compete on quantity—most countries in the world produce cattle and most countries in the tropics produce mangoes. The only things we can compete on are proximity to markets in the case of cattle and buffalo, which are mostly going to Indonesia and Vietnam, and quality, again, with our cattle, and with our mangoes into Asia and the UAE. It is vitally important to ensure we continue to develop legislation to support these markets.

Labor don't support agriculture and rural Australia. This was evident in 2011 when they recklessly slammed a live export ban on the cattle industry. I can't tell you how devastating this ban was, particularly in the Northern Territory and certainly to my home town of Katherine. Producers overnight had no income. They had no capacity to buy or pay for goods or services. This immediately flowed on to associated industries, such as transport, feed producers, stock and station agents, and veterinary practices. In a small town the flow-on was immediate and severe. Suddenly a large proportion of the town could no longer go to a restaurant or a cafe, could no longer buy something from a retail outlet and could no longer afford to get something fixed on their home or property. It devastated our economy and it did so for many years.

However, we as a government do care and do support our agricultural industries. We must give them all the support and assistance we can and use the levers at our disposal to ensure they have the best possible opportunities to maintain and grow export markets. This bill will reduce some of the red tape and congestion that can be impediments to their trade. The Liberals and Nationals government has announced a sweeping set of reforms and investment in Australia's agricultural export sector to help drive economic recovery in rural, regional and remote Australia and the nation more broadly. The investment is a major drawdown payment on achieving a $100 billion agricultural sector by 2030. It currently stands at $65 billion. It is an ambitious target, but one that's very achievable.

Our investment and reform agenda is an opportunity to reimagine our services from an exporter's perspective. The government wants to get out of the way of business but provide a seamless service experience. By using advanced technology we will significantly transform how the Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment delivers its services. In the meantime we will freeze fees and charges.

We are investing $328.4 million in the agricultural exports system, to modernise Australia's training environment and to lead a strong economic recovery. We have provided $222.2 million to transform our export systems, including contributing to a single digital one-stop shop, fast-tracking goods to international markets. We have invested $14.3 million to improve our regulation, particularly for the live animal and seafood industries, to provide greater access for exporters refocusing their businesses into new markets. Live animal exports have remained relatively strong, but we've all heard about the lobster industry and their suffering at the hands of the Chinese market.

The Liberals and Nationals government has also provided $10.9 million to reduce the regulatory burden on meat processors and maintain Australia's status as a leading source of premium animal products. Our friends in the opposite back corner would like to ban live exports today. I'm sure they will rejoice at this announcement, as increased processing will eventually replace live exports. But we are doing much more and have invested $10 million for streamlined plant export services, giving farmers quicker, easier and cheaper access to overseas markets. There is $71.1 million in direct cost savings to exporters, including immediate price freezes, plus $21.4 million in reform-driven fee reductions over four years. These investments are anticipated to return benefits of at least $236 million to the sector as we progress towards the target of a $100 billion agricultural sector by 2030—remember that ambitious but achievable target.

With about two-thirds of Australia's agricultural products being exported, it is vital that we support these exporters and create an environment in which they and Australia, as a whole, benefit, and that is exactly what we have done. We've invested $72.7 million to help Australian agribusinesses expand their export markets as part of the Agri-Business Expansion Initiative. There is $669 million to address air freight shortages and disrupted supply chains for agricultural and fisheries exports through the International Freight Assistance Mechanism, $11.4 million to enhance the international competitiveness and profitability of the horticulture sector, $6.14 million to extend the Package Assisting Small Exporters grant process and $5.1 million to reduce the impact of non-tariff measures by funding industry based analysis. These initiatives build on the $51.3 million commitment under the growing Australian agricultural exports measure from 2018-19 to expand our agricultural exports and seize market access opportunities in global food chains. This includes funding for the overseas agriculture counsellor network and expansion into new locations such as Mexico, Chile and the UK.

As I mentioned, the government has also beefed up its Agri-Business Expansion Initiative, which is a targeted measure being put in place to help Australian farming, forestry and fishing exporters expand and diversify their export markets. We understand only too well how important that is in the face of what's become very apparent to us with regard to the Chinese markets.

As I said, and it's worth repeating because it is such a good initiative, the government is investing $72.7 million to help Australian agribusinesses expand their export markets as part of the Agri-Business Expansion Initiative. This includes $42.9 million to support 2,000 agrifood exporters through the Australian-led accelerate program, providing targeted advice and trade missions to help exporters grow in new and existing markets. We have also invested $18.4 million to extend the Agricultural Trade and Market Access Cooperation Program to develop strategic partnerships with industry to support trade expansion and diversification; $6.8 million to accelerate the negotiation of technical agreements to provide food safety, animal health and biosecurity protocols with trading partners by boosting our scientific and technical capabilities; $3.5 million for three new short-term agricultural counsellors, able to be rapidly deployed to pursue market access priorities with the greatest commercial prospects to complement the work of our existing 22 agricultural counsellors; and $1 million for marketing intelligence and analysis to assist in identifying opportunities for exporters.

This bill is important not just to our farmers and agricultural exporters but to the whole of the country, because if our farmers thrive the rest of the country thrives too. This is a government that is committed to making the right choices to help our farmers and exporters to maintain and grow their markets and contribute to Australia growing a strong and healthy economy. We know that, when our rural industries thrive, when the bush is doing well, the nation as a whole does well. Certainly for the Northern Territory, where export is such a vital part of our agricultural industries, streamlining the process—removing the red tape, making it easier for exporters to do business—is an absolutely vital function of this government. This government, unlike those on the other side, has shown that it cares for rural areas, regional areas, primary producers and exporters. This government will continue to support all those industries now and well into the future. I am very happy to commend this bill to the Senate.

Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (19:31): The bill that is before us, the Export Control Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Bill 2020, is required to amend parts of the Export Control Act 2020. The bill addresses issues identified since the Export Control Act received royal assent on 6 March 2020, following consultation with key industry stakeholders. The bill will clarify the application of a fit and proper person test for variations of registration of, or to approve an alteration of, an establishment. It will enable the secretary to make rules to enable a notice of intention to export a consignment of prescribed goods to be approved or refused. Furthermore, the bill will modify how certain provisions apply to reviewable decisions for tariff rate quotas and will enable the secretary to make rules to prescribe requirements for determining whether to issue an export permit. The bill will also clarify which instruments may be incorporated in the framework to calculate the tariff rate quotas for goods. The bill will support the implementation of the new export control framework and minimise the administrative burden for Australia's agricultural export industries and stakeholders. The bill will support the initiatives of the Morrison-McCormack government to bust congestion in regulation and ensure that agricultural industries come out firing after the threat of the coronavirus has passed. I commend the bill to the chamber.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Senator STEELE-JOHN (Western Australia) (19:33): I move Greens amendment (1) on sheet 1202:

(1) Schedule 1, items 9 to 13, page 4 (line 27) to page 5 (line 6), omit the items, substitute:

9 Subsection 383(4) (note)

Repeal the note.

10 Subsection 385(3) (note)

Repeal the note.

11 Section 386

Repeal the section.

Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (19:33): Senator Steele-John, we are not going to support the amendment, because it would deny the Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment its legal basis to ensure tariff quotas were not overallocated. The intention of the bill that's before us is to provide greater clarity under the Export Control Act, and the inclusion of tariff rate certificates in addition to tariff rate entitlements reflects the fact that some of the trading partners use different terms. It's also important to note that the measure is already in the Export Control Act 2020, and the proposed government bill seeks to avoid confusion for exporters.

The amendment that you've put forward would, as I've said, deny the Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment the legal basis to ensure that quotas aren't overallocated. The bill and the retrospective measures also make clear that exporters will be unable to seek a formal review of the quota allocated to them, where the full quota has been allocated. Quota arrangements are negotiated as part of bilateral arrangements, regional and multilateral trade agreements, and it would be inappropriate for the department and the government to be put in a position where it is exceeding its agreed quotas and allocations. That is the reason why we will not be supporting your amendment, Senator Steele-John.

Senator STEELE-JOHN (Western Australia) (19:35): As noted by the Scrutiny of Bills Committee, there is a question as to whether this bill, as it currently stands, may trespass on an individual's or an entity's right to a fair hearing, because of the amendments that it makes to the relevant legislation relating to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. As I said in my first contribution to this debate, when combined with the so-called Henry VIII clause within this bill, these two aspects of this legislation take something which would otherwise be seen as purely administrative and they put up some pretty significant red flags. I'm speaking particularly to the ALP when I'm thinking here that there have been a few times during the course of my time here when I've been genuinely moved and motivated by a speech made by a member of this place. One of those times, however, was the speech made by Senator Carr in the previous sitting in relation to the absolutely urgent need that this house of review, this chamber of review, reassert its prerogative to review actions and decisions made by the government, under legislation, and that it in no way volunteer the opportunity for that power to be taken away unless there's a good reason made for it.

It's our view in the Greens that a good enough reason has not been made for the inclusion of the so-called Henry VIII clause here. And, additionally, there has been nowhere near the compelling case made to remove relevant decisions from the purview of the AAT. The amendment offered by the Greens this evening addresses these flaws in the legislation, and I commend it to the Senate on that basis.

Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (19:38): Senator Steele-John, the methodology for allocating quotas differs across different markets. The way that it's been designed allows new entrants and small exporters to be able to access those quotas as well. So it is just simply a means of us being able to provide all exporters with an opportunity to be able to participate in our export markets. Whilst I've heard your concerns, we do not believe that the amendment that you are putting forward will improve the bill. We believe it will be detrimental to the bill. Therefore, we won't be supporting it.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR ( Senator Polley ): Order! The question before the chair is on the amendment moved by Senator Steele-John.

Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (19:47): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT ( Senator Polley ): The question is that this bill be now read a third time.

Senator PRATT (Western Australia) (20:01): Labor have some 10 amendments to this bill. We had sought to move them together, but I understand from negotiations that we need to split them up. The reason Labor will be moving these amendments today is that the scheme as it currently stands does not deliver on the promise for redress made by this parliament—redress that's timely, redress that does not retraumatise and redress that does not leave survivors missing out.

The reality of this scheme as rolled out by the government does not reflect the will of this parliament. It falls short of the original recommendations of the royal commission. Our amendments seek to address major structural shortcomings of the scheme. We seek to bring the scheme back in line with the original intention and motivation of the royal commission, to end the delays caused by institutions not doing the right thing by not joining the scheme and to ensure no-one misses out through strengthening funders-of-last-resort provisions and the introduction of an advanced payment scheme. We seek to do this by delivering full redress for survivors by lifting the cap on payments as prescribed by the royal commission; making sure that prior payments are not indexed to take away from a redress payment, including from members of the stolen generations who were paid redress for the fact they were removed as children, not necessarily for the sexual abuse that they suffered at the hands of the perpetrators in the institutions that they were stolen away to; making sure that a request for a review of redress and the review of that offer cannot result in that offer being reduced; scrapping the existing and arbitrary assessment matrix and delivering on one that is fair and properly recognises the full impact of abuse; and ensuring ongoing psychological and other forms of cultural support for survivors throughout their lives. After so long, it is time for this parliament to again reflect on the promise that it made to deliver redress to survivors of childhood sexual abuse within Australian institutions.

We have an opportunity tonight in this chamber to improve this scheme, and this parliament should deliver on that. We are a quarter way through the 10-year life of this scheme, and still the number of redress payments are tracking well below what was expected. Do you know what this means? This means that there are institutions out there that know. They've got records; they've heard of how many victims inside those institutions have experienced abuse. And even though those institutions have signed up and are ready to make those payments under this scheme, still there is enough deterrent to people to not do the paperwork and sign up. Our amendments today are designed to help clear that path, to make the application and pursuit of redress that much easier for victims and survivors. It's a clear warning sign, the low take-up rate and the low number of payments, and we have a responsibility today to do something about that. I would like to ask the minister this evening: are you aware that many of the concerns that survivors have raised with the matrix and its potential use were, indeed, identified before this scheme was even implemented and in the early debates we had about this legislation?

Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (20:06): In a broad response to the contribution just made by Senator Pratt, I would say a couple of things. First and foremost, there seems to be a lack of understanding by those opposite about how this scheme was actually designed to operate. It's designed to operate in such a way that all of the states and territories have a level of responsibility and commitment towards this scheme. A board has been established in conjunction with the Commonwealth government that requires the unanimous agreement for any changes to the scheme to actually be negotiated.

Secondly, what the contribution just given to us failed to recognise is the fact that, as part of the establishment of the scheme in the first place, we would undertake a statutory two-year review by an independent assessor. That person appointed is Robyn Kruk AO. Robyn was the person who undertook the review of the redress scheme that was established inside the military, or the defence forces, and she is due to report on that review in a couple of weeks time. Her review has sought advice from a number of different sources, but, most particularly, her review has been informed by interviews with survivors and in consultation with survivors. What the government wishes to do as part of the process of this review is wait to find out what the reviewer recommends so that we are able to provide a formal, independent review that has actually taken into account the voice of survivors.

In principle, there is nothing to say that many of the amendments that have been put forward by the opposition today don't have very good merit to them and, in principle, the government are certainly not arguing against them. But what we are saying is: 'You know the process; you understand the review's in place.' I have had significant and detailed conversations with the shadow minister in the other place and it was tremendously disappointing to see those opposite are still intending to move these amendments and, in doing so, seek to supersede or pre-empt the response from our independent reviewer, who has been informed by survivors. The government will not be supporting any of the amendments that have been put forward by the opposition, because we actually believe there is an appropriate process to go through to enable us to have a firm and solid independent benchmark against which we can make continuous improvement.

Senator Pratt, we on this side do not shy away from the fact that this scheme has not been perfect, but we do wish to work together in a multipartisan way to make sure this scheme is the best it can be. Coming in here two weeks before the independent reviewer is due to table her report, which I have agreed to make public, suggests to me that you're not perhaps as genuine as you might be suggesting you are.

Senator PRATT (Western Australia) (20:09): How quickly will the government put forward amendments to this legislation on the basis of the findings of the review? You said that you expect many of the issues we raised to be canvassed. How quickly will you make a decision to amend the very same act that we are debating amending today?

Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (20:10): Clearly, the bill that we're debating today has absolutely no relevance whatsoever. This is actually a technical bill that seeks to make—

An opposition senator interjecting—

Senator RUSTON: Indeed, but I just wanted to make it very clear that these are technical amendments to support the act to make sure that it is functioning in a way that is more effective, so this bill has got nothing to do with the matters that are before the chair in relation to the amendments.

As I said in my previous contribution, we have a redress board. The redress board is made up of me, as the representative of the Commonwealth government, and also all of the other ministers in the states and territories who have responsibility in their respective jurisdictions for the Redress Scheme. On the process that would happen after we receive the review, clearly we would have the opportunity to have a look at the recommendations of the review and then we would seek to go back, because, as I said, we require a consensus amongst all of the ministers that sit on that redress board.

I want to reiterate that this government absolutely is committed to a program of continuous improvement in the Redress Scheme. We know that, when we started off with this scheme, it certainly did not start off as well as we would have liked it to. The complexity of the applications that we received from survivors was much greater than we ever imagined. But we don't shy away from the fact that we are absolutely committed to continuous improvement. We will give an absolute commitment to say that we will work with the state and territory ministers, informed by the review and informed by the advice that we've received from survivors, to make sure that we continue to provide the redress in the most timely way we can for survivors who have come forward.

Senator PRATT (Western Australia) (20:12): Minister, will you commit now to implementing all of the recommendations of the review? I know it's an independent review, so I'm assuming that the recommendations will be public quite soon and that you may even have some idea of what some of them may be. I want to ask you if you will implement all of the recommendations.

Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (20:12): As I said in my previous answer to your previous question, I am but one of a number of ministers that sit on the national redress board. I need to be able to consult and negotiate with those other ministers in relation to any changes that might be made to the act. Equally, I do not know what is in the review. To come in here and speculate on this technical amendment bill about something that I haven't even seen would be inappropriate.

Senator PRATT (Western Australia) (20:13): If the redress board do not agree to a much-needed change, will you call them out publicly? Will you act unilaterally to make some improvements? How will you work to address the issues raised by survivors? What happens if this board rejects the findings of the review? Are you going to hide behind that board in order to get out of acting on behalf of survivors?

Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (20:13): I can assure you that I have no intention of getting out of acting on behalf of survivors and I find the comment actually quite offensive. I'm not going to come in here and speculate on hypotheticals, but I will reiterate my commitment and the commitment of this government to making sure this scheme is the best it possibly can be to support survivors.

Senator PRATT (Western Australia) (20:13): Given the process you've outlined, Minister, that we're waiting for the recommendations that come out of the review—you said that's due in a couple of weeks, I believe. You say, 'Yes, it's coming soon, so why are you pursuing these amendments now?', and yet then you go on to say, 'Well, any changes still have to go to the redress board in order to make any changes to this act.' Minister, I want to ask you: given the issues with the matrix, given the indexing of payments, given the problem of the number of redress payments tracking below what was expected, given the delays caused by institutions not joining the scheme, given the issues around strengthening funders of last resort to ensure that everyone has access—but, in particular, the issue of things like indexing and the matrix—what is your advice to survivors today? If they are concerned about the current management of the Redress Scheme and the current provisions of the act, should they wait to put their applications in? Will they be judged according to the old matrix or the new one? Will they be invited to resubmit their applications? Noting that this review is coming, you must have some idea of the kinds of issues that you are going to need to take to this board, rather than just saying, 'Wait and see.' You have to be able to actively manage, right here and now, the expectations of survivors; otherwise they might be thinking, 'Well, I'm going to have to wait two more years to put my application for redress in.' Yet they may well find that nothing changes. What is your advice to survivors today, Minister?

Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (20:16): As I've said before, the independent two-year review that's being undertaken by Robyn Kruk AO has sought to draw on the advice and experience of survivors in relation to this scheme. Her review will be informed by that advice. The amendments before us today have not been informed by a formal process of consultation with survivors, and I believe the most responsible thing that I as the minister can do, that this government can do and that the governments of states and territories can do is wait and have the independent review informed by survivors before we make decisions about any changes going forward.

Senator PRATT (Western Australia) (20:16): Minister, I ask you to reflect more specifically on the amendments we have moved today, which, indeed, allow you as minister to respond with flexibility and latitude to those recommendations. If you would like me to do so, I would be happy to go through some of the specifics of those now. If you look at the form of the amendments that we seek to move from (3) onwards, the issues that are going to come up in the review are very closely matched to the issues that we raise in these amendments and, again, would enable you in large part—and we can wait to be corrected because you are going to have to legislate to make these changes at some point in the future anyway—to move much more quickly in response to that review in a couple of weeks time. It would enable you to take the findings of the review and use the amendments made in this place to respond flexibly and take new arrangements to the board. So, Minister, I again ask you to reflect on the need to urgently pass these amendments today, rather than waiting, as you have suggested, until the outcome of the review.

Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (20:18): The contribution that we've just received from Senator Pratt assumes that the amendments that have been put forward will be the recommendations of the review. We do not have the review, so we are pre-empting an independent review, so I don't accept the premise of your comment.

Senator PATRICK (South Australia) (20:19): With your indulgence, Chair, I'm not quite sure of the status of where we're up to. I heard Senator Pratt say that you will move amendments separately. I'm not sure whether you've actually moved any amendments at this point. The answer to that is no? I know that Senator Siewert has some more general questions. Perhaps you could assist—

The TEMPORARY CHAIR ( Senator Gallacher ): Senator Patrick, no amendments have been moved.

Senator PATRICK (South Australia) (20:19): Okay. I would ask for assistance—perhaps Senator Pratt could tell, because the running sheet basically says everything's being moved together—just to understand how they're going to be broken up. And I do have some general questions, as I know Senator Siewert does.

Senator PRATT (Western Australia) (20:19): There are 10 amendments, and they're numbered specifically. Because in our discussions with the crossbench we are not as yet clear on which amendments are being supported by which senators, it's incumbent upon us, therefore, to move one to 10 separately, but the revised sheet does specifically number them separately.

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (20:20): I have some questions for the minister about the bill and a couple of things more generally as they apply to the scheme. As I indicated in my second contribution, can I ask: if survivors will no longer be provided with the full list of associate institutions under these amendments, what are you going to do to ensure survivors can access this information in alternative ways? As I made the comment in my second reading amendment, they have a right to know who they are signing the fact they won't undertake any civil litigation away to.

Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (20:21): In response to Senator Siewert's question, all of the institutions that sit underneath the application will be available online, so the survivors can actually have a look at all of the institutions. The purpose of this measure, I suppose, is to not put a huge list of institutions to a survivor, but they will be able to get access to the actual institutions. The changes have been sought to be put in place because we've been advised of the fact that this is a more trauma-informed way of being able to provide the information to survivors.

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (20:22): I take your point, but will the specific link be provided to survivors so if they choose to they can then access that list?

Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (20:22): I'm advised that that will be possible, subject, obviously, to this bill being passed.

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (20:22): I presume, therefore, that the information which is provided to survivors when they're making an application et cetera will be changed in order to inform them of the reasons why the list isn't being provided and that they can access it. In other words, they know to go and look for it if they want to.

Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (20:23): Senator Siewert, I'm advised that that will be able to be facilitated for the survivor if that is their wish.

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (20:23): The issue here is they may not know to go and look for it unless they're specifically told. I take the point about not giving them the whole list and that it should be up to the survivor, but sometimes you don't know what you don't know to ask for unless you are told that you can access it if you want to.

Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (20:23): I'm advised that in the response letter to the applicant they will identify the specific institutions in that instead of, as we currently do, just putting in a great big, long list. It will be more specific so that the survivor doesn't have to trawl all the way through a million organisations to find the one that has perpetrated the action.

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (20:24): Just so I've dotted the i's and crossed the t's, I presume that if somebody is not using the online system there'll be an alternative way to be able to access that information?

Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (20:24): It will also be provided to them in written form by way of a letter.

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (20:24): The bill clarifies, as we've articulated during the debate, that one or more participating government institutions can become funders of last resort. What guarantees are there that no survivors are going to have to wait even longer and experience further delays as a result of these changes? It's already a lengthy process when you've got one funder of last resort.

Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (20:25): The purpose of this amendment is to expedite the process and make it faster. I'm more than happy to keep you briefed and up to date as these amendments roll out to demonstrate why we're putting them in place. But it is our belief, from the advice that we've received, that these changes will actually make it faster, not more complicated.

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (20:25): Could you briefly outline why you think it's going to be quicker to do it this way? Will you be looking specifically at the time line for applications relating to defunct institutions? Will there be a process to make sure that you're tracking it really carefully?

Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (20:26): When the royal commission undertook its investigation, it didn't actually anticipate this being an issue. For that reason, there was no provision in the primary legislation for the funder of last resort to actually be shared between various jurisdictions. This legislation seeks to make sure that you can have more than one funder of last resort so that the defunct institutions' share of the liability or the redress cost is divided equally between the two government institutions. At the moment, it doesn't actually work like that. It just puts clarity back into it and gives us a quick and easy mechanism, contained within the actual act, to be able to do it. At the moment, there's silence in the act in relation to being able to split the funding liability of a defunct institution.

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (20:27): I just want to comment that I don't think this is the end of dealing with the funder of last resort. I think you will acknowledge that further reforms needed to that process. I'll go to Fairbridge Restored and the Prince's Trust. I want to ask for an update. You'll be aware that this is close to a lot of people's hearts, particularly Western Australians. This is a very tricky issue; I will freely and frankly acknowledge that. Could you please provide the Senate with an update on the ongoing negotiations and consideration of this issue, given that, unless something is done, Fairbridge Restored will soon, by the very nature of the UK legislation, cease to exist, as I understand it, unless there's been some progress?

Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (20:28): Thank you, Senator Siewert. I know that this has been a particular issue for the Western Australian senators in this place and others in this parliament, not least due to the sizable number of people involved with Fairbridge. As a result of Fairbridge Restored's refusal to join the scheme, we named and shamed them on 1 July last year. We are continuing to consider and work through the particular options for how we can ensure that we get the redress that the survivors of that particular institution deserve. At the moment, we are in negotiations. We have engaged with the Department of Home Affairs and the Australian Government Solicitor in relation to the unique situation in terms of the relationship between Fairbridge Restored and the Prince's Trust. Due to the stage of those negotiations, I can't really give you a lot more information. We need to move to the settlement, and we would not seek to prejudice the outcome of those negotiations by any commentary here. We will continue to advance the work to make sure that we resolve this issue. We are confident that we will be able to find a solution that can be progressed to ensure that survivors of that particular institution can get the redress that they deserve. I regret that I can't give you any more detail than that.

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (20:30): I do appreciate the sensitivity of these particular discussions. Is there a time line that you can share with the chamber? A number of us have been pursuing this for quite some time and are concerned about the slowness. I'm not casting aspersions. I get it that these things take time. Also, a group of survivors are very keen to find out what's going on. Could you give us a sense of a time line for a start, please?

Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (20:30): I can't give you a time line, but, in terms of the priorities of this scheme and issues before us at the moment, no priority could be higher than resolving this particular issue—not to suggest for a minute that every survivor is a priority of the scheme but on the basis of the comments that you've just articulated. We're placing very high priority on resolving this particular matter as soon as we possibly can.

Senator PATRICK (South Australia) (20:31): Minister, I want to get a feel for the time line in respect of the review. I say this having just over the last couple of days got a return on an FOI about the National Archives review. I note it was commenced in April 2019, it was provided to the minister in February 2020 and it's still not public. I listened to what you said. You suggest that these amendments might be premature, but I will of course give much stronger consideration to supporting Labor's amendments or at least some of the amendments if indeed any legislation that's likely to remedy or deal with some of these issues is in fact two years away. I'm just trying to get a feel. You're going to get the review at some stage in the next couple of weeks. I wonder how long you're anticipating considering the review. If you could give a time line—best endeavours. I want to get a feel for that please, Minister.

Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (20:32): Senator Patrick, you weren't in the chamber when I gave a bit of a time line to Senator Pratt a minute ago. This is the process that will occur. The report will be provided to the government sometime in the next few weeks—hopefully, by the end of this month. The report will then be provided to the other members of the redress board—the ministers in the states and territories who have responsibility for redress in their particular jurisdiction. Then we will seek to meet straight afterwards. We're meeting in April, so the state and territory ministers will have a month to consider the recommendations in the review. We will meet in April. At that meeting we will consider those recommendations and seek for decisions to be made as to whether there is unanimous support to implement those recommendations.

The thing that has failed to be realised in this place is that the federal government does not have the capacity to act unilaterally and make changes. Because of the way the redress act is written and the way the board is established, we require the support of the states and territories. This is a partnership agreement. That's the way it has been set up. Obviously much of the responsibility exists within those state and territory jurisdictions. I can certainly give you a commitment that the Commonwealth seek to move as quickly as we possibly can, but I can't pre-empt, firstly, what the report is going to say, which is what these amendments seek to do, and, secondly, I can't pre-empt what agreement I'll be able to reach around the redress board table. But I can give you an absolute commitment that the review will be provided to the states and territories immediately after the Commonwealth government receives it. I can give you a commitment that I will be meeting with the redress board in April, at which time we will consider those recommendations. I can also give you a commitment that, as soon as the board has agreed to it, I will be releasing the report so that it is available for public review.

Senator PATRICK (South Australia) (20:35): I have a couple of follow-up questions on what you just said, Minister—and I thank you for that. Based on what you've just said about a partnership agreement, I'm wondering if the amendments that are being moved by Labor will put that agreement into a breach situation. I'd like to just get an understanding of that, as a first question.

Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (20:35): Certainly, it is in breach of the intent of the legislation. As I said, the federal government cannot unilaterally make a decision on behalf of the redress board, which is what these amendments seek to do. What I would seek to do, with any changes to the redress act that are recommended by the review, is take them to the redress board for approval, because there may be situations where they have to also undertake legislative amendment within their own jurisdictions, and get their agreement so that when I come back to this place—and I give you an undertaking that we will move as quickly as we possibly can—I know I'll be coming back with the full support and agreement of the other members of the redress board.

Senator PRATT (Western Australia) (20:36): Minister, you currently have the power to do things on behalf of the Commonwealth, like top up payments or respond to some of the issues that we all know are already being publicly canvassed. Do you acknowledge that you have the power to do that?

Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (20:36): This is a cooperative scheme. We went into this with the states and territories in good faith that we would operate together. I am actually getting a tiny bit distressed that, despite my responses to many similar questions, you seem to refuse to accept what I'm saying.

Senator PRATT (Western Australia) (20:37): I'm well aware of that, coming from the state of Western Australia. The state had some difficulty in signing up because of the complexities in negotiating agreement with the Commonwealth around some of those issues, so you certainly don't have to underscore that for me. Minister, will you ensure that the report of the review is responded to by the government and the committee within 90 days?

Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (20:37): In responding to the questions Senator Patrick asked, I outlined the process. We will receive the report, I would imagine, within the next couple of weeks—hopefully, by the end of February. We have a redress board meeting that has already been scheduled for April to give the other members the opportunity to consider the report, and at that redress meeting the matters that are contained in the report will be considered. So that is the process that has already been put in place. And, as I said, I will also make the report available publicly.

Senator PRATT (Western Australia) (20:38): I refer to our amendment (3) on sheet 1196 revised. I'm happy to move it now, or I can move them in order. But, specific to this amendment, Minister, do you agree that the cap remaining at $150,000—restricting redress to that—does not provide adequate redress to some victims and that this is an issue that will need to be actively considered in the review?

Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (20:39): Senator Pratt, it is not for me to unilaterally make a decision. These matters are all before the review.

Senator Pratt: But it's not for you to make a decision, it's for the parliament.

Senator RUSTON: No, that is where you're absolutely wrong, Senator Pratt. It's not a decision of this parliament. It is a decision of the parliaments of the states and territories across Australia. There is an agreed process. It was agreed in this place when the scheme was stood up. I understand that everybody in this place agreed to the establishment of the scheme in its current format. As part of that process, we undertook to have a two-year review because we believed in setting up a scheme of this magnitude. This is a very complex scheme and it has proved to be very difficult. We are not shying away from the fact that it has been a very difficult scheme. But we are absolutely committed to its continuous improvement, and part of that is making sure that we allow the independent review to be undertaken and to provide that advice back to us.

I think really all we're seeking to do here today is to pre-empt by a couple of months the determinations of a group of people. That group has been established under the act with responsibility for delivering this particular scheme. Every single amendment, with the exception of the one about naming and shaming, has exactly the same answer, and that is that they are all matters that are likely to have been canvassed in the review. I will not pre-empt the views of survivors that are contained in that review for the political purposes of this chamber.

Senator PRATT (Western Australia) (20:41): I turn to the third amendment in the 10 that we are moving. What we have outlined here is to call on the minister to consider the action that needs to be taken to increase the cap from $150,000 to $200,000 and, within 90 days of the commencement of this section, report on what the minister has done or plans to do to have the cap increased and, if the minister has not done and does not plan to do anything, the minister's reasons for this. You can do all of those things in a manner that is consistent with the review, except if the review were to say, 'Well, I guess we don't want to recognise the rest of the public debate that clearly argues that the cap is too low, that $150,000 is an inadequate cap and that it needs to be increased to $200,000.'

I do not understand why, when you're heading into negotiations with the states, you would not want to be armed with the demonstrable will of the Senate and, indeed, the parliament to show that there is a clear position that the cap should be increased. It doesn't restrain you in any way, other than committing you to working through a process on what actions you will undertake to increase the cap.

Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (20:42): What I have committed to do is what the act has asked me to commit to do, and that is to undertake an independent review that is clearly informed by an independent structured process to get the views of survivors to make sure that anything that goes before the redress board is fully informed by an independent assessment that takes into account the full views of survivors who have been a significant part consultative process. Nothing changes from that. I've given an absolute commitment to this place, and I'll continue to give a commitment to this place, to work through the appropriate processes to make sure that I am listening to the voices of survivors through the most appropriate means, and that is the independent review, not a political discourse.

Senator PRATT (Western Australia) (20:43): I foreshadow that I will move our amendment (1) on sheet 1196. This amendment asks that a review cannot result in a reduced payment. I'm sure these issues will come up in the review that you are referring to. It is a commonsense safeguard. It is a safeguard that could be enacted and considered by the parliament now so that this government and the parliament can make progress on these issues. It's such a simple amendment, but it would mean so much to those in the scheme. As we know, people are not asking for a review of their payments, because they fear that the amount being offered will be reduced. It's connected with the complexities in the matrix and the application, in that there are a whole range of reasons that the sum offered to them is not in any way reflecting what they think it should be and what any other assessment, if you actually were to go through the particulars of their case, would show adequate redress to be.

Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (20:45): The government will be opposing this amendment. I'd like to inform the chamber that I had very detailed discussions with shadow minister Burney in the other place. It was a matter she raised to me when she came to speak to me about this particular bill. I give an undertaking to the shadow minister that I would investigate any specific situation that the shadow minister was aware of where somebody had sought a review and the review had come back and indicated they had a decrease in payment. I'm still waiting for Ms Burney to come back to me. In any situation in this place, if there has been a detrimental outcome or an outcome that has been delivered through my department that has caused concern to somebody's constituent, my door remains open. As I said, I have never received any advice from Ms Burney about any instance where this has happened, despite the fact it has been spoken about. I have asked as part of the review process that this issue be considered. I am happy to have a look at any situation. If Senator Pratt has a particular case she would like me to undertake an investigation on, I'm more than happy to do so. But do not come in here and talk about hypotheticals when I am unaware whether you're aware of anybody who has received a review that has resulted in a decreased payment being undertaken. My understanding of the situation as it currently exists is if an error has been made by my department in an assessment resulting in the review, showing that—

Senator Pratt interjecting—

Senator RUSTON: I'm telling you that now, Senator Pratt. In any circumstance where the review has resulted in a mistake by the independent assessor or by my department where a lower amount has been recommended underneath the review, the payment has not been reduced.

The CHAIR: Senator Pratt, can I just clarify, did you wish to formally move amendment (1) or are you wishing to move your amendments together?

Senator PRATT (Western Australia) (20:47): I do want to move them separately. However, it would make sense, so we're not calling everyone down to the chamber after individual debates, for me to outline all of the amendments so that we can then put the questions one after the other, if that seems to make sense to others.

Amendment (1) is so that a review should not result in a reduced payment. Our second amendment was to hold the government to account on its naming and shaming of non-participating institutions, so amendment (2) amends schedule 1, page 15, and inserts a section that legislates that the government must name an institution if, after the first six months where an application has been made, that it continues not to want to participate. It introduces a requirement that the minister names any institution that refuses to join the Redress Scheme within six months.

I acknowledge the government's policy. I acknowledge that that policy was put in place after significant pressure from survivors, and Labor brought voice to that within the parliament. But this naming and shaming is not guaranteed. It requires proactive management by the government. I've no doubt you'll do the right thing, but this is also parliament wanting to express its will about this policy and that this policy should be legislated. If your undertaking as a minister is entirely consistent with ours as a parliament that sees this as important, as you say, then we've got a moral duty in this place to vote this amendment up. Participating in redress is a part of any institution's social licence, and we in this parliament have an expectation that a failure to participate should have the full glare of the Australian community.

The further amendments are, as I outlined, deliberately structured to give the government flexibility and latitude—flexibility to negotiate with the states and territories to make the changes needed by the scheme. They foreshadow very much a commitment to not only the outcomes of the review but the issues that have been identified in public debate, in parliamentary committees and by senators in this place. We don't need to wait for the review to know how substantial these issues are.

We need a clear commitment from the government to bring the scheme back to what the royal commission intended. We need leadership, not, 'We're just going to wait for the review.' We need leadership, because we know that that's what survivors of abuse have been saying. They require the minister to report to parliament on what steps will be taken to achieve these changes within 90 days. There's no reason for the government and the minister not to accept this responsibility and this level of scrutiny. Indeed, it is our right to scrutinise these movements, not just that of the committee that's made up by the states. These issues include increasing the cap on redress payments, as we've already outlined in debate, with flexibility. One of our amendments calls on you to outline your actions on increasing the cap. That report should be tabled.

On ending the indexing of relevant prior payments, what the minister has done, or plans to do, to have indexing ended, as mentioned in the subsection, must be reported. If the minister has not done, and does not plan to do, anything, the minister must give reasons for this. We've seen the legacy of the impact of prior payments being indexed, and it's heartbreaking to hear the stories of people who go through the onerous process of retelling the story of their abuse to then barely getting any redress once a tiny payment from years ago is indexed. People feel insulted and disrespected when this happens. It's incredibly difficult for people to dredge this up, and they should feel they are being left empty-handed after this process.

On deducting prior payments—and this is in amendment (5) of sheet 1196—we need safeguards to ensure that the prior payments deducted from redress are relevant prior payments. Again, I'm sure this issue will come up in the review.

Then we've got schedule 1, item 51 at amendment (6)—advance payment schemes for elderly and ill applicants. We know that too many ill and elderly people who have done applications have already died. It's a scheme already working well in Scotland. There's no reason that you should not accept the will of the Senate today on behalf of survivors of abuse to support this amendment. It would not cost more. It would just give people recognition and peace of mind at the end of their lives.

Finally, amendment (7) is in relation to the funder of last resort. This amendment makes sure that no-one misses out on redress. If an organisation has folded and no longer has any links to a continuing organisation or if an organisation genuinely does not have the resources to participate in the scheme, the government should make sure redress is paid. This, of course, leaves it open for the government to continue to pursue avenues of seeking those moneys from other institutions. But you can't put people—victims of places like Fairbridge—through the prospect of seeking redress and then tell them there's nothing on the table.

Amendment (8) deals with psychological counselling and support. As Senator Smith already highlighted in the earlier debates today, we need to make sure that ongoing counselling and support is provided but also that it's culturally appropriate. The money, as the act is currently structured, is paid in a lump sum and it's supposed to be enough for a lifetime. People can be left with as little as $1,250 for their lifelong counselling and support needs. So, again, this amendment calls on you to report on what the minister has done and plans to do to ensure that those resources are flexible and available to people over their lifetime.

Amendment (9) deals with better recognising the impact of sexual abuse. This is very significant, and I would hope that the report of the review picks this up. Indeed, the government should—and has the capacity to—respond to that issue now. One of the reasons I think that some survivors are unhappy with the offers that are being put to them is actually about the cruel and arbitrary nature of the matrix. I recall that when these issues were discussed in the Senate in the past, including in hearings about the legislation and the nature of the matrix, we couldn't get details from the bureaucrats at the table in relation to how the matrix would work. It seemed that there was a concern that the matrix would somehow be gamed. I know that, when people apply and go to fill out the matrix, the notes and introductory statements ask people to be explicit as to the nature of their abuse. However, the evidence that we have heard before the joint committee, and I'm sure it's been an issue before other committees, is that survivors of abuse do find it very difficult to be completely forthcoming about that, and they believe that those assessing these should be able to read between the lines. I foreshadow that I will be moving opposition amendment (1) on sheet 1196. (Time expired)

Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (20:58): Senator Pratt, I think that, in moving this amendment in relation to the naming and shaming, you have misrepresented what we already do and how the scheme operates in relation to the naming and shaming of institutions that fail to join the scheme within the timeframe that has been allocated to them. I think you fail to understand that, in many instances, these are incredibly sensitive situations and every application that we receive is different in some way, so the scheme needs to retain the flexibility to make sure that we are acting in the best interests of the survivor and providing the information to the survivor. When you end up with some extraordinarily complex applications—some of them are terribly heartbreaking to read—that have named many, many institutions, the process whereby we make sure that we get all the institutions to join is extremely complex. What we have sought to do is to make a commitment to this place through the redress board—sanctioned by the redress board—to name and shame organisations that have not joined up within six months of being notified that they have been named in an application. We made the same provisions for those organisations that were named in the royal commission. We have clearly honoured that commitment. On 1 July we named and shamed six institutions. It was pleasing to find that two of those joined the scheme subsequently. On 1 January this year we didn't have to name any institutions, because all institutions that had exceeded the time period we put in place had joined the scheme. That enabled us to progress the applications of survivors against those institutions.

We made a further commitment, which was approved through the redress board, that, from the federal government's perspective, no further grants could be accessed by an institution that failed in its moral obligation to join the scheme. That is already in place. I'm pleased to be able to advise this chamber that the state and territory governments have also instigated proceedings to make sure that no institution that is named is able to access grants from their respective jurisdictions either.

The final thing that we announced and did as part of our name-and-shame exercise—and, as I said, pleasingly we didn't have to name and shame any further institutions on 1 January this year—was that, through the process of the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission, we would be revoking charitable status for any organisation that did not join the scheme. This will have a significant impact on any organisation that has been named by the scheme and doesn't do the right thing. Their charitable status will be revoked.

We have been absolutely committed and we have done everything that we said we would do. We have committed into the future, through changes to the act, that we will continue to name organisations. We got the policy through the redress board to say that any institution would have six months to join from the time that they were advised they'd been named by an application.

I would also like to take this opportunity to commend the many organisations that have not had an application named against them but have joined the scheme. These are organisations that have a history of working with children and have taken their responsibility of working with children going forward to such a degree that they have joined the scheme without an application against them. That means that if in the future we receive an application against that institution we won't have to wait to go through the six-month process for them to join, because they'll have already joined.

The federal government, in conjunction with the state governments through the redress board and in the actions that have been taken, have demonstrated our absolute commitment to making sure we name and shame organisations that do not join up to the scheme, as well as taking further sanctions and actions against those organisations to penalise them in a monetary way. We seek to maintain a level of maximum flexibility, understanding the sensitivity of the scheme, so that the government, as the scheme operator with the states and territories, can make sure we're doing the best we possibly can to have a trauma-informed response to survivors, so we can get them their redress in the least traumatic and fastest possible way.

Senator PRATT (Western Australia) (21:03): Thank you for taking to your feet so I can finish outlining our amendments. I do note you responded to amendment (2), but, for your clarification, the first question before the chair will be amendment (1), which is about the review.

Amendment (9) requires that the impact of abuse be better recognised. In the committees I've participated in, survivors have told us about the arbitrary nature of the matrix, which links payments to the nature of the abuse; for example, was it physical, was it penetrative, was it exposure, was it contact, was it penetrative rape, was it fingers—what was the nature of the penetration and what sex organs were involved?

It has actually been very hard for some survivors of abuse to be so explicit. In some cases, while they've outlined the very traumatic impact that the abuse has had on them, they haven't been able to bring themselves to be as explicit as they need to be in their documentation. Others have outlined the nature of their abuse but the matrix has discounted it because it rates payments on the basis of the nature of the act that took place, rather than on the impact of that abuse. This amendment calls on the government to report again on these issues so that payments for abuse are calculated independently, as recommended by the royal commission.

Amendment (10) requires non-participating organisations to participate. It makes sure that, if an organisation refuses to participate in the scheme or deliberately restructures its assets so as to appear that it can't participate, the government will be able to get funds from it in order to pay redress. This could take the form of a levy or collection through the tax system. As we know, there are constitutional limits on seizing assets; however, it is indeed unacceptable for organisations to simply refuse to participate or to hide their assets. They need to be compelled to do so. It needs to be legislated that they pay redress to those they have hurt.

So I've ripped through our 10 amendments, and I now seek to move our amendment (1). This amendment means that, if a person seeks a review of their offer, the offer cannot be reduced. This will give people more confidence to seek a review. I move opposition amendment (1) on sheet 1196 revised:

(1) Schedule 1, page 14 (after line 12), after Part 5, insert:

Part 5A—Reviewing the original determination

National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Act 2018

46A At the end of section 75

Add:

(4) When reviewing the original determination, the person may not vary the original determination or set aside the original determination and substitute a new determination in a way that would result in the amount of the redress payment or the amount of the counselling and psychological component of redress being less than the amount determined in the original determination.

Senator PATRICK (South Australia) (21:07): In noting amendment (1), I want to ask a question of the minister. Minister, I think you said, in one of your earlier statements, that this is a matter that will be considered by the review. I'll probably ask the same question with regard to each of the amendments as they're moved. Is it your understanding that the review is looking into this particular aspect of the scheme? In the event that the review doesn't cover off on this particular issue, are you open to considering it—in the event that the report that's provided to you is silent on this?

Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (21:07): I can confirm that all of the issues that have been traversed in the amendments that have been put forward by the opposition are matters that are currently being considered by the review, so the matter of the amendment that is currently before the chair, amendment (1), is being considered as part of the review.

Senator PATRICK (South Australia) (21:08): Thank you. That will truncate the remainder of my questions. I guess the second part of my question is redundant, in that you say all of these issues will be traversed. That takes me to amendment (3), if I may, in relation to the cap. It's my understanding that the royal commission recommended a minimum of $10,000 in a payment and a maximum of $200,000, as is proposed to be considered here, and that, indeed, $65,000 was considered to be the average payment. So that amendment is of particular interest to me because the royal commission made a specific recommendation in respect of this.

Senator RUSTON (South Australia—Minister for Families and Social Services and Manager of Government Business in the Senate) (21:09): Senator Patrick, you are correct in relation to the recommendations of the royal commission. However, in order for us to be able to get the unanimous agreement that we required with the redress board—the state and territory ministers and the governance board—it was the view of that board that the maximum payment be $150,000. We have sought for the reviewer to undertake an assessment as to that particular number. You're also quite correct that the royal commission suggested that the average payment would be $65,000. It actually has proved to be higher than that. The average payment was $83,400, so certainly we are seeing payments higher than the royal commission anticipated. But it was by virtue of the fact that we required the unanimous agreement of the states and territories, who are represented on the governance board, that the decision of the scheme, when it was set up, was $150,000. But, as I said, it is a matter being considered by the review.

Senator PATRICK (South Australia) (21:10): Just for the benefit of the chamber, and perhaps Labor, in terms of moving amendments, on the basis of the minister's answers I won't be supporting the amendments, but I will support amendment (3) on the basis that it was a recommendation of the royal commission. That may assist you in terms of calling divisions.

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (21:11): I'd just like to clarify the Greens' position on these matters. The Greens will be supporting these amendments because we think that these issues have been well traversed and it's time that we did see some movement on them.

In terms of amendment (1), which is, as I understand it, the amendment that Senator Pratt has just moved, I did listen to the minister's answer to the question on this and the fact that you asked for examples. The fact here is that the very existence of this particular process, where somebody thinks that they could have their payment reduced, actually puts people off seeking a review. That's why we think this is so important; it's so that people aren't put off. People are traumatised by the scheme. A lot of people, I will acknowledge, have had a good experience, but a lot of other people haven't, and they find the whole process retraumatising. We hear from people who say that they start to do the form and just doing the form retraumatises them because they rethink about it. They leave it for a while before they go back to it, before they complete the form. So I can totally see how people could be put off seeking a review having gone through the process and then thinking that their payment might be reduced.

So we think this is particularly important and we think these amendments—for example, increasing the cap from $150,000 to $200,000—are, as I said, way past time. The Greens made it plain at the time that we actually supported that—it should have been $200,000 all along. It's the same with the indexation of prior payments. Survivors have been complaining and deeply concerned about this since the very get-go. I do acknowledge that the government has done a lot of work to get institutions to sign up, but having this in legislation gives effect to that, to something the government has been doing now. This is the same with the other amendments, but I'll come back to those as Senator Pratt moves each one.

The CHAIR: The question is that amendment (1) on sheet 1196 revised, moved by Senator Pratt, be agreed to.

Senator SIEWERT (Western Australia—Australian Greens Whip) (21:22): Prior to that vote, I articulated the Greens' position on some of the amendments. As I understand there are going to be some moved together, I'll take this opportunity to outline our support for those amendments and, briefly, the reasoning for that.

Amendment (5) will make sure that, if there's any doubt about whether a prior payment relates to sexual abuse, the scheme will err on the side of the applicant and not deduct the payment from redress. We will be supporting this particular amendment. We think that survivors shouldn't be worse off just because of the way prior payments are considered under the scheme.

In terms of the advance payment scheme, we think this is a particularly important amendment for elderly and ill applicants. As Senator Pratt articulated, other jurisdictions, like Scotland, have made advance payments available to applicants as part of their redress schemes. This is particularly important, as we know that some survivors are ageing and they are very vulnerable. We think this would go a long way to helping them and ensuring they at least see some form of justice.

In terms of amendment (7), this relates to the issues—

The TEMPORARY CHAIR ( Senator McGrath ): Excuse me, Senator Siewert. Senators, if you're going to have a conversation, could you please have it outside. The level of noise in this chamber is quite loud. Could everyone just be quiet—apart from you, Senator Siewert.

Senator SIEWERT: Thank you, Chair. I was finding it a little bit difficult to focus on the issues at hand with the noise level. Amendment (7) relates to the funder of last resort. As I've articulated before, the Greens are very focused on funders of last resort because we don't want to see people missing out because of the issues around the funders of last resort.

I'm going on to amendment (8) to quickly outline our support for it and our concerns about this particular issue of ongoing psychological support. I've been on, I think, all of the various committees looking at redress, both prior to looking at legislation and the legislation itself, and also on the current joint committee and the previous committee, and I have consistently heard evidence about people's concerns around ongoing psychological support. In particular, during the joint committee's hearing following the implementation of the scheme, there has consistently been deep, deep concern about the insufficiency of the funding and about the process for psychological and trauma-informed support. So we support that amendment.

Similarly, I remember standing in this chamber talking about the assessment framework, again from the get-go, and I do think this needs to be reformed, as in the group of amendments in amendment (9). Also, we support amendment (10). We're supportive of moves that constructively compel institutions to join the scheme.

I'm hoping that, by giving our feedback on each of these amendments now, that will assist the chamber and Senator Pratt to group the amendments, and that it will mean that I'm not bobbing up and down each time we're dealing with the separate amendments.

Senator PRATT (Western Australia) (21:26): I move amendments (2) to (10) and I ask that the question be put separately on each of those amendments. We seek, in this chamber, to advance the interests of survivors. We know that these issues are before the review. There's nothing in these amendments that constrains the government, other than to be accountable to this chamber and, indeed, to survivors, in a positive direction for their interests. I commend the amendments to the Senate.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR ( Senator McGrath ): Senator Pratt, I might need you to move each amendment separately, unless you do want to group some of them together. I'm in the hands of the chamber here. If you want to do it numerically, from (2) through to (10), we can do that, but that will mean nine divisions.

Senator PRATT: We would be happy, with the chamber's indulgence—I think everyone knows their voting intention—to move them separately but have one-minute divisions, if that's appropriate.

The TEMPORARY CHAIR: I think the first division might end up being a four-minute division, looking at the whips.

Senator PRATT: Of course. Naturally, that would be the case. Therefore, I move opposition amendment (2) on sheet 1196 revised:

(2) Schedule 1, page 15 (after line 13), after Part 6, insert:

Part 6A—Naming and shaming non‑participating institutions

National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Act 2018

48A At the end of Division 3 of Part 5‑1

Add:

116A Naming and shaming non‑participating institutions

(1) This section applies to a non‑government institution if:

(a) either:

   (i) an application made under section 19 identifies the institution as being involved in the abuse of a person; or

   (ii) information given in response to a request under section 24 or 25, in relation to an application made under section 19, identifies the institution as being involved in the abuse of a person; and

(b) the application has not been withdrawn under section 22; and

(c) the institution is not a participating non‑government institution.

(2) If the institution refuses to participate in the scheme, the Minister must publish a notice stating that, despite the matters mentioned in paragraphs (1) (a) and (b), the institution refuses to participate in the scheme.

Institution has 6 months to become a participating institution after first application etc. that identifies institution

(3) The Minister must not publish a notice under subsection (2) in relation to the institution until the end of 6 months after the first time subparagraph (1) (a) (i) or (ii) applies in relation to the institution.

The CHAIR: The question is that amendment (2) on sheet 1196, moved by Senator Pratt, be agreed to.

Senator PRATT (Western Australia) (21:34): I move opposition amendment (3) on sheet 1196 revised:

(3) Schedule 1, item 51, page 18 (after line 30), at the end of Part 8‑2, add:

200 Increase in cap on redress payments

(1) As soon as practicable after this section commences, the Minister must consider the action that needs to be taken to increase the $150,000 cap on redress payments to $200,000.

(2) Within 90 days after this section commences, the Minister must prepare a report on:

   (a) what the Minister has done, or plans to do, to have the cap increased as mentioned in subsection (1); or

   (b) if the Minister has not done, and does not plan to do, anything—the Minister's reasons for this.

(3) The Minister must cause a copy of the report to be tabled in each House of the Parliament on or before the first sitting day of that House after the end of those 90 days.

(4) In this section:

    action includes amending this Act, an instrument made under this Act, or any other law.