Press conference, Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse
E&OE
Subjects: Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse
MINISTER:
I might just commence by noting it’s self-evident that this is a momentous day. This represents the receipt of the full recommendations from Australia’s longest ever running public inquiry: 409 recommendations in total, 189 new recommendations that are the result of today’s release of the final report. At the heart of the Royal Commission, of course, are thousands of personal stories – stories that are harrowing, often utterly horrific stories from individual survivors.
So, it’s required of me today, of course, that I formally thank the work of the commissioners: Mr Bob Anderson, Justice Jennifer Coate, Professor Helen Milroy, Mr Andrew Murray, and the chair Justice Peter McClellan. But more fundamentally, it is a day for recognising the courage, the resilience, and to acknowledge and do our best to understand the suffering of all of the survivors and their families who gave evidence before the Royal Commission.
So, the Royal Commission is a process of recognition and validation for all the survivors, and this is a day to recognise their courage, their suffering, and all that they have been through. Of course, equally important to all the survivors is the fact that today, in terms of the release of the Royal Commission, is part of an ongoing process of reform. And as part of that ongoing process of reform, there are a number of new recommendations, and no doubt you will have questions on some of those today, but I would just note that this is an ongoing process, that there have been interim reports into issues surrounding working with children and the checks thereof, issues around redress and civil litigation, and issues pertaining to criminal justice systems in the Commonwealth and in each of the states and territories. And what I would just note for you all today is that in terms of the interim reports and interim recommendations that we have already received, the Turnbull Government has shown a very strong leadership position in terms of engaging in fulsome and timely responses to recommendations that have already been received.
Just noting four particular areas of importance. The first is the changing of limitations periods in cases where the Commonwealth is the defendant. That is a matter that we are already addressing. The second is developing a nationally-agreed set of principles to make organisations safer for the participation of children – again, a matter already well-advanced. The third is progressing a national database to allow the sharing of Working with Children data across jurisdictions – an utterly critical matter which is across jurisdictions and which the Commonwealth is already taking a leadership role on. And of course, the fourth major area that is already well-underway is the issue of a national redress system and scheme, which is now being legislated for at a Commonwealth level and perhaps will be the subject of questions in a short moment.
Before taking questions about any of the recommendations or the redress scheme specifically, it’s probably also useful to note that the Turnbull Government’s commitment to improving the systems that are in place in this area and ensuring that the types of systemic abuse that we have seen uncovered by the Royal Commission do not occur into the future, is something that we take enormously seriously, that we will tackle with every resource at our disposal.
And I would note that the Turnbull Government has made a number of critical changes well in advance of Royal Commission recommendations, and two that I’d just highlight today are that on 13 December 2017 we commenced a new Commonwealth offence of travelling or attempting to travel overseas for a range of offenders in this area. Now, one of the things that the Royal Commission noted, which I think is of great concern to everyone in Australia, is that there is this element of offending where organisations were actually moving individual offenders between countries to avoid detection and prosecution. So I would just note, in anticipation of those types of issues and acknowledging them, that on 13 December 2017 the Commonwealth Government brought in this new offence of travelling or attempting to travel overseas for a range of child sex offenders.
The other thing that we presently have before Parliament is the Sexual Crimes Against Children and Community Protection Measure Bill, which in effect mandates terms of imprisonment for child sex offenders. The reason that we have done that is that since 2012, only 58 per cent of child sex offenders received a term of imprisonment, and the most commonly given term of imprisonment was for six months. And the determination that the Justice Minister, the Attorney-General, the Turnbull Government had made entirely is that that is manifestly inadequate and it required a firm legislative response from the Commonwealth Government.
So, in noting all of those matters, I’d obviously invite any questions, noting of course that this is first and foremost and fundamentally a day to recognise the courage, the perseverance, and the endurance and suffering of all of the survivors and their families that gave evidence.
QUESTION:
Minister, will the Federal Government go to COAG with the recommendations?
MINISTER:
Well, I think when you look across the 189 new recommendations, it’s inevitable that some of them will have to be resolved by cooperation with all of the state and territory jurisdictions. Many of them are directly inside the constitutional remit of the Commonwealth Government; many of them are matters that pertain directly to state and territory laws. So COAG will be, I think, a necessary mechanism with respect to a range of the recommendations. But the 189 new recommendations obviously need to be considered and digested. What we will choose, as the Commonwealth Government, is the best way forward in terms of ministerial councils or COAG or whatever other structures are at our disposal to make sure that they’re given the most timely and fulsome response.
QUESTION:
Are there any of those new recommendations that you would foresee being problematic in any way?
MINISTER:
Well, I mean, there are 189. Obviously I’ve had very limited time to consider personally each and every one of them, but there are recommendations around historically ingrained issues, like the celibacy of members of the priesthood. Now, these are not necessarily matters inside the legislative control of the Commonwealth Government, or indeed potentially state or territory governments. So there are recommendations that need to be considered across Australia by state, by the territories, by the Commonwealth, and we should never lose sight of how important it is for each of the individual organisations and institutions – the churches and charities – to consider the recommendations, which I am sure they will consider.
But it would be being less than honest if we pretended that there is simplicity in the way in which responses will occur. These are often very complicated matters, but what I’ve attempted I think to do for all of those people for whom this stands as an important day, the survivors, is demonstrate that the Commonwealth Government, with respect to the interim reports, interim recommendations, we have not done anything other than respond swiftly with every mechanism at our disposal to make sure that we can put in place the proper reform settings to ensure that these horrific events do not systemically occur into the future.
QUESTION:
Minister, you touched on the victims and survivors there. These people have waited a long time to see these recommendations come out. How much longer will they have to wait to see major changes?
MINISTER:
Well, again, I’d just note that some of the recommendations involve matters of great complexity across state government, Commonwealth Government, individual civil institutions in our society. Where we have been directly responsible and where we have been able – the Commonwealth Government and the Turnbull Government – to show leadership, we have done it. Our track record here is one responding quickly and forcibly with every resource at our disposal, and we will keep doing that.
Can I just say for me, personally, I spent many years as a prosecutor prosecuting child sex offenders. I have some at least understanding of how terrible and horrific these events were for survivors, how processes can re-traumatise survivors, but of course how it is important when you do respond to respond clearly and quickly. And myself, the Attorney-General, the Prime Minister have endeavoured that whenever we have responded, we have responded clearly, quickly and with every resource at our disposal, and will keep doing that.
QUESTION:
In relation to the maximum payments to [indistinct], will you consider now lifting that from $150,000 to $200,000 after those recommendation?
MINISTER:
Yeah, so that was a recommendation of one of the earlier reports, and the way in which we have designed the redress scheme is that there were 74 redress recommendations; we have adopted fully or substantially 63 of those, and partially or substantially adopted seven. Now, one of the recommendations that we only partially adopted was a recommendation for a maximum payment of $200,000, and we’ve designed a scheme with a maximum payment of $150,000, but also with a range of other services that are very important to survivors, particularly relating to counselling, where the counselling can be ongoing and is assessed individually on the merits.
We are not inclined to reconsider that maximum payment amount for a number of reasons. But perhaps most importantly is we have been through 12 months of negotiations with state and territory jurisdictions, churches and charities, around a defined model. That model has a maximum payment of $150,000, and we chose that figure understanding that no amount of money can place people in a position that they were in before these dreadful events happened, that we wanted a low legal hurdle system, and we wanted a system that maximised the opt-in from churches, charities, and other jurisdictions. And that maximum payment that we determined on was determined on because that was the payment would allow maximum opt-in, and I’m very optimistic that we will see that opting-in happen very soon, but we won’t be changing those fundamentals of the redress scheme.
QUESTION:
Are you disappointed that some states, including WA, haven’t fully committed to the redress scheme?
MINISTER:
Well, there are several jurisdictions that have made public statements that, in effect, they are more likely than not to join the Commonwealth scheme, and we’re awaiting on final decisions from New South Wales and Victoria, but the early signs from those jurisdictions have been very, very positive. And all of the negotiations with the jurisdictions have been conducted in good faith. There is one jurisdiction, South Australia, that has indicated that they are not inclined to join the national scheme. The remaining jurisdictions, Northern Territory and the ACT, are likely to join, and we’ve indicated – in fact, the press conference around this time last year – that we will use our constitutional powers to compel them to join if it comes to that, but it’s unlikely that it will come to that.
That means that there are several jurisdictions – Queensland, Western Australia, Tasmania – who haven’t said a large amount publicly with respect to their intentions, and I do think that today and in the days ahead, in recognition of the needs of the survivors, what the survivors have been through, it’s likely important that those jurisdictions actually present publicly to you in the media and to others and give some kind of general view as to what their intentions are.
QUESTION:
What would happen to people in those states that didn’t come on board?
MINISTER:
I think what’s important to note is that if a jurisdiction or an institution determines not to opt in to the national scheme, that does not mean that their responsibility to survivors ends. We are very much hoping that the large jurisdictions – and indeed most jurisdictions – that the large institutions, churches and charities – and indeed most churches and charities – opt in to the national redress scheme that we have devised and which is well-advanced, and which will be commencing operations in 1 July next year.
However, if any jurisdiction doesn’t opt in or any organisation doesn’t opt in, that organisation still has enormous responsibilities by way of redress to survivors for whom it was responsible. And the point is ultimately that the Commonwealth Government, that you in the media, and that survivors and the entire Australian public at large will be placing moral pressure on those organisations to do the right thing by their survivors. Now, first and foremost, the right thing is to opt in to the Commonwealth-led national scheme, but if ultimately any organisations determines not to do that, they still have an enormous responsibility to survivors in their own institutions.
QUESTION:
Is the feedback that you’re getting from some of the states that are reluctant that they’re concerned that they could be left with a reasonably substantial bill if they’re the funders of last resort where institutions can’t pay up?
MINISTER:
Well, part of the negotiations with the states and the territories – so, the jurisdictions – has been around the issue of funder of last resort, and we have reached agreement on a model that allows, in a fairly broad range of circumstances, the Commonwealth, the states, the territories to be the funder of last resort. And that’s the model that we have been building over the last year, which we’ve consulted on over the last year, and that remains the model. That is not, and nor should it be, a sticking point to joining ultimately. So we’ve already, if you like, reached agreement on the model. What we now need to see publicly is statements from churches and charities and jurisdictions that they are opting in to that model, which we have consulted on with them at enormous length over the last 12 months.
QUESTION:
There are some survivors who are still asking for the redress scheme to be applicable for people who have gone on to abuse themselves. Is there likely to be any reconsideration on that, or is your position final?
MINISTER:
Well, it is a final position and it’s a position, if I might say- so this is the issue with respect to the fact that we have drawn a line around taking applications from people who have committed serious criminal offences and spent five years or more in prison, and the determination based on 12 months of consultation – not merely with the churches and charities, but particularly the state and territory institutions and our independent advisory committee – is that one thing that is absolutely necessary around a full national opt-in redress scheme is public confidence.
Now, a view emerged – my recollection was almost unanimously amongst all the states, the territories and the Commonwealth – that some limitation had to be placed around the ability of someone with a fairly significant criminal record of offending and sexual offending to themselves be able to apply. Now, we determined to draw that line around the five-year mark of imprisonment. We discussed this at great length with our advisory committee who, of course, was heavily representative of survival groups, and there was broad consensus inside that advisory committee that this also was an appropriate line to draw.
Now, that is a very difficult and agonising decision. We understand that it is often, sometimes very often the case that someone who has been offended against lives in terrible circumstances and themselves may go on to offend. By no means is that a majority of cases or anything like that, but we acknowledge that it happens. But to maintain public confidence in the scheme, we’re determined to draw reasonable boundary around applications for people with previous criminal offences, and we consulted heavily about what that boundary should be. We’re unlikely to change that.
QUESTION:
The Prime Minister just put a statement out saying that you’ll have $50 million to support people with redress. Is that- can you explain what that money is for?
MINISTER:
Well, we’ve already placed in the last Federal Budget – the budget just passed – in excess of $30 million to start up the administration of the national redress scheme, which we have now placed the legislation in Parliament for. As part of that, we have made the Commonwealth a commitment to monies that will be expended on counselling, so those monies, all up, are represented in the sort of figures that the Prime Minister’s talking about today. So there’s $30 million. That money is for additional services, through the redress scheme to survivors, both those in the Commonwealth settings but other jurisdictions that we’re responsible for.
QUESTION:
And are you satisfied that the Government came up with the scheme fast enough? Could it have been done any sooner?
MINISTER:
Well, it’s one of the more difficult things that I’ve experienced professionally in my life. I would always like to do these things more quickly, but to get a scheme that maximises opt-in – and I believe over the next several weeks we will start to see the larger jurisdictions and the churches and charities start opting into this scheme – that took an enormous amount of consultation, and it took an enormous amount of consultation with the advisory committee to get really difficult issues – like the one that you just mentioned about restrictions on former offenders being able to apply – designed in an appropriate way that people can be satisfied with, that engages public confidence and that makes for a workable scheme. It would have been good to have it all done quicker. I can’t see a way in which, realistically, in real world situations, that that could have occurred. So my earnest observation is this has been done as quickly as possible, but keeping in mind that this scheme will be up and operational taking applications at 1 July next year.
QUESTION:
What happens to the institutions that don’t respond [indistinct]?
MINISTER:
Well, your question is what should happen to institutions who do not respond. The worst possible thing is a lack of response. Institutions should respond. They should respond, in principle, quickly. The responses should, in effect, be to understand and do the utmost to institute recommendations of the Royal Commission. But what institutions shouldn’t do, both in terms of responses to the Royal Commission’s recommendations, but also in terms of this public statement about opting into the redress scheme, is delay. So there has to be a reasonable amount of time to consider recommendations, but institutions, just as we have, have to show willingness to respond within reasonable time.
QUESTION:
Just in relation to the WA Government, what’s your understanding of their commitment?
MINISTER:
Well, can I say that these are questions that you ultimately have to address to the WA Government …[interruption]… but I would simply summarise the WA Government’s position by saying that they have not excluded their joining a national redress scheme. They are in the possession of the same, if I might argue, extensive pool of information that we’ve provided every other jurisdiction. My observation is they should be in a position to actually make a determination about whether they are going to join in national redress or not join in, and I think that is a question very well put. I would expect most state attorney-generals and ministers responsible today or over the next several days will be giving you in the media some kind of indication. And the questions need to be asked, but that is an answer that only those jurisdictions can provide.