|
representatives vote 2021-02-04#10
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2021-04-02 14:20:44
|
Title
Bills — National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Amendment (Technical Amendments) Bill 2020; Consideration in Detail- National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Amendment (Technical Amendments) Bill 2020 - Consideration in Detail - Early payment scheme
Description
<p class="speaker">Linda Burney</p><p>I move opposition amendment (5):</p><p class="italic">(5) Schedule 1, item 51, page 18 (after line 30), at the end of Part 8-2, add:</p>- The majority voted in favour of *disagreeing* with an [amendment](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2021-02-04.46.1) introduced by Barton MP [Linda Burney](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/representatives/barton/linda_burney) (Labor), which means it failed.
- MP Burney explained the [purpose of the amendment](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/debate/?id=2021-02-04.46.1):
- > *To me, this is one of the most important amendments. Many people who are survivors of child sexual assault are old and unwell, and many have died waiting for their payment. An early payment scheme is working well in Scotland. It would not cost more. There are no cost implications. It would just give people recognition and peace of mind at the end of their lives.*
- ### Amendment text
- > *(5) Schedule 1, item 51, page 18 (after line 30), at the end of Part 8-2, add:*
- >
- >> *203 Advance payment scheme for elderly and ill applicants*
- >>
- >> *(1) As soon as practicable after this section commences, the Minister must consider the action that needs to be taken so that, in appropriate circumstances, redress is payable to elderly or ill applicants in advance of their applications being approved.*
- >>
- >> *(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 redress payable 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.*
<p class="italic">203 Advance payment scheme for elderly and ill applicants</p><p class="italic">(1) As soon as practicable after this section commences, the Minister must consider the action that needs to be taken so that, in appropriate circumstances, redress is payable to elderly or ill applicants in advance of their applications being approved.</p><p class="italic">(2) Within 90 days after this section commences, the Minister must prepare a report on:</p><p class="italic">(a) what the Minister has done, or plans to do, to have redress payable as mentioned in subsection (1); or</p><p class="italic">(b) if the Minister has not done, and does not plan to do, anything—the Minister's reasons for this.</p><p class="italic">(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.</p><p class="italic">(4) In this section:</p><p class="italic"><i>action</i> includes amending this Act, an instrument made under this Act, or any other law.</p><p>To me, this is one of the most important amendments. Many people who are survivors of child sexual assault are old and unwell, and many have died waiting for their payment. An early payment scheme is working well in Scotland. It would not cost more. There are no cost implications. It would just give people recognition and peace of mind at the end of their lives.</p> <p class="speaker">David Gillespie</p><p>The question is that amendment (5) be disagreed to.</p><p>Honourable members interjecting—</p> <p class="speaker">Tony Smith</p><p>Members on both sides, standing order 94(a) applies even when the division bells are ringing. The question is that amendment (5) be disagreed to.</p>
|