ABC Radio Perth – Redress
E&OE
Subjects: Redress
GEOFF HUTCHISON:
So there needs to be quite a bit of explanation about what this redress scheme will be, how they come to the amount of $150,000, why some people are precluded and this point – that I found pretty interesting – that if I am to be a beneficiary of this scheme, I also have to release the offending institution from any civil liability.
I spoke to Social Services Minister Christian Porter just moments after he came out of the Parliamentary chamber.
GEOFF HUTCHISON:
Christian Porter, good morning.
CHRISTIAN PORTER:
Good morning, Geoff.
GEOFF HUTCHISON:
You’ve just been in the chamber. Thousands of victims of child sex abuse to be offered personal apologies and up to $150,000 in compensation; can you explain how you came to that figure?
CHRISTIAN PORTER:
Well there’s two figures here: the Royal Commission estimated that there are likely – although this obviously is an estimate – 60,000 survivors of sexual abuse, abuse that occurred when they were children in institutions that were charged with their care; and these institutions were in some instances run – if you like – by state or territory or Commonwealth government, in many instances they were run by churches and charities. So that figure of 60,000 is obviously a horrific human toll with enormous suffering, horrendous events.
What we have done is taken the Royal Commission recommendations and crafted with a bill that I’ve just introduced – in fact, I’ve just come out of the chamber then. We’ve crafted a scheme, the architecture of which starts off with the Commonwealth, the ACT, the Northern Territories and all of the institutions there were in those jurisdictions and extends out as different states and territories and churches and charities opt into the scheme. And that’s the way that we hope to get broad national coverage to those 60,000 survivors.
The maximum payment under the redress scheme is $150,000 and the scheme is, of course, not merely about money but in terms of recognising the suffering, in terms of doing the best to alleviate it. There are counselling services that will be offered inside the scheme once assessments are made and we are trying to create a low hurdle, simple, clear, easy to navigate process for the survivors of the abuse.
GEOFF HUTCHISON:
Who will have access to this? If I am that person, what is the process by which this gets underway?
CHRISTIAN PORTER:
If you’re a survivor who suffered institutional abuse in a Commonwealth or a territory institution, then you’ll be able to start being advised about crafting an application in the middle of next year and we’ll start taking applications on 1 July 2018.
Now, what we’re very much hoping and encouraging is that the Catholic Church, the Anglican Church, Victoria, New South Wales, opt-in in the not too distant future to also allow survivors whose suffering occurred in those jurisdictions and in those institutions to make their applications inside this scheme.
So the reason that we’ve crafted the scheme in a consultative way is we want to make sure that its fundamental terms and conditions and processes are acceptable to all of the states and territories, so that we can get those states and territories joining in, so that we can cover all of those people. But the scheme effectively starts assessing its applications on 1 July of next year.
GEOFF HUTCHISON:
Okay. If I’m that person, to participate in the scheme and to be the recipient of a one off payment or a top up payment from any original redress, I understand I have to release the offending institution from any civil liability; is that right?
CHRISTIAN PORTER:
Yep. So at the very end of this process there will be a deed of release required to be signed and that will release the institutions against whom the application is made from further civil liability. But equally though, it’s the case that if, say for instance, the Anglican or the Catholic Church had concluded a civil litigation or a complaint of another type from a survivor- let’s say they have concluded that and paid an amount of $50,000 and in that, prior to conclusion, had had the person sign a deed of release then the Catholic or Anglican Church, if they opt into this scheme, have to waive those prior deeds of release.
So all the institutions have said that they want to end this finally, as do the survivors. So that deed of release process is a critical part of getting this opt-in from the churches and charities that everyone wants and is desirable, but it also relies on the good will and the good faith of those churches and charities to give up previous deeds of release so that we can have this final process underway and finished.
GEOFF HUTCHISON:
I’m curious to know the extent to which it was a condition that the churches would insist upon. You know, was their commitment to this dependant on that? Yes, we will participate, but not if they’re going to go after us again in a civil environment.
CHRISTIAN PORTER:
Look, the short and honest answer to that is it was a very important condition for churches and charities and state and territory governments; and indeed, the Royal Commission recommended that this should be the final process and it should include a deed of release upon the acceptance of redress. So I think everyone recognised that to make this work, it has to have a finality of process embedded in the architecture of the scheme.
All of that having been said, of course no one need accept the offer of redress under those terms. If people consider that the best course for them is through civil litigation for whatever reason then they’ll make that decision and we – the operators of the scheme, the Commonwealth – will ensure through the scheme that the person is properly funded to get independent legal advice as to what is the best path for them personally – should they accept the redress payment and sign the final deed of release or should they go it in the civil courts? But of course, the difficulty with civil litigation here it’s long, it’s complicated, it’s expensive, proving things to the evidentiary standard that exists in those processes when they occurred 10, 20, 30 years ago is often very, very difficult so we have tried to design a non-legal process with lower burdens of proof and simpler, swifter mechanisms and that is the basis upon which we will run the scheme and obviously see deeds of release at the end of it.
GEOFF HUTCHISON:
My guest this morning is the Social Services Minister Christian Porter. 13 800 222 720. What do you make of what you are hearing? He has just introduced this bill into the chamber, this national redress bill dealing with the concerns of tens of thousands of Australians who were the victims of sexual abuse within institutional care in this country. The possibility of a payment of up to $150,000 in compensation with personal apologies too.
Do you need to apply pressure to institutions and states to come on board?
CHRISTIAN PORTER:
Well I think when you ask do we need to apply pressure I think I would agree to the extent that we means all Australians.
GEOFF HUTCHISON:
Yes.
CHRISTIAN PORTER:
I mean, this is not merely the responsibility of the Commonwealth Government; we’ve taken the leadership role in setting up the scheme that other jurisdictions and charities and churches to opt-in to. And to be fair on those organisations, they’ve been part of this consultation, they’ve been helpful, they’ve given advice and suggestions around the legislation but the legislation now is out. We hope very much it will be passed soon.
CHRISTIAN PORTER:
So we’re fast approaching that point where we really need organisations, churches, charities, state and territory governments to give in principle public indication that they will opt in. And you know, that’s the critical fact that gives certainty to survivors …
GEOFF HUTCHISON:
Yes.
CHRISTIAN PORTER:
… that they will have this recourse to have an acknowledgement and a recognition and a degree of alleviation applied to the suffering that they’ve gone through.
GEOFF HUTCHISON:
You’re listening to Social Services Minister, Christian Porter. Last observation: significantly those who were abused but would go on to become abusers or sexual offenders themselves will be precluded from this scheme. You’re probably aware, Leonie Sheedy, who’s the CEO of CLAN – the Care Leavers Australia Network – says: look, they were child victims too, they deserve some compensation. She says they don’t deserve a full amount, and much of that money should go to their victims also. But she says if you don’t recompense them in some form, she argues that churches and charities will be getting let off too lightly. How did you come to the conclusion that those who go on to offend can have no role here?
CHRISTIAN PORTER:
Well you could imagine that was a very difficult decision to make, and there were a variety of views and we consulted very heavily with every jurisdiction, state and territory. I don’t deny what Leonie said, that it is the case that often people who have committed offences later in life found themselves as children in circumstances where they themselves were offended against.
I think I can summarise what was a very difficult decision by saying two things; one is that all the jurisdictions – state and territory, the Commonwealth – considered that critical to the success of the scheme was a higher degree of public confidence, and we thought that there could be a very significant erosion to that public confidence if we were allowing applications by what could potentially be very serious sexual offenders themselves, who would then receive a payment for sexual offence that they had endured years ago. So, public confidence in the scheme was very important.
Many of the jurisdictions insisted on this as a principle behind the scheme, and then we made the determination about where to draw that line and the decision was that no-one, who themselves had been convicted of a sexual offence, would be able to apply, and we set a limit of excluding those people who’d served five years at a term of imprisonment for what would obviously be a very serious criminal offence. I think we’ve tried to find the right balance and the balance that maximises the opt in from state and territory governments, which is so critical.
GEOFF HUTCHISON:
Thank you very much for talking to me this morning.
CHRISTIAN PORTER:
Thank you, Geoff.
(ENDS)