|
senate vote 2021-02-15#12
Edited by
mackay staff
on
2022-07-15 10:48:05
|
Title
Bills — National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Amendment (Technical Amendments) Bill 2020; in Committee- National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Amendment (Technical Amendments) Bill 2020 - in Committee - Naming and shaming non-participating institutions
Description
<p class="speaker">Rachel Siewert</p><p>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.</p>-
- The majority voted against an [amendment](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2021-02-15.228.4) moved by West Australian Senator [Louise Pratt](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/wa/louise_pratt) (Labor), which means it failed.
- ### Amendment text
- > *(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 *(b) the application has not been withdrawn under section 22; and*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.*
<p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>In terms of amendment (7), this relates to the issues—</p> <p class="speaker">James McGrath</p><p>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.</p> <p class="speaker">Rachel Siewert</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p> <p class="speaker">Louise Pratt</p><p>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.</p> <p class="speaker">James McGrath</p><p>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.</p> <p class="speaker">Louise Pratt</p><p>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.</p><p>The TEMPORARY CHAIR: I think the first division might end up being a four-minute division, looking at the whips.</p><p>Of course. Naturally, that would be the case. Therefore, I move opposition amendment (2) on sheet 1196 revised:</p><p class="italic">(2) Schedule 1, page 15 (after line 13), after Part 6, insert:</p><p class="italic">Part 6A—Naming and shaming non-participating institutions</p><p class="italic"> <i>National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Act 2018</i></p><p class="italic">48A At the end of Division 3 of Part 5-1</p><p class="italic">Add:</p><p class="italic">116A Naming and shaming non-participating institutions</p><p class="italic">(1) This section applies to a non-government institution if:</p><p class="italic">(a) either:</p><p class="italic">  (i) an application made under section 19 identifies the institution as being involved in the abuse of a person; or</p><p class="italic">  (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</p><p class="italic">(b) the application has not been withdrawn under section 22; and</p><p class="italic">(c) the institution is not a participating non-government institution.</p><p class="italic">(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.</p><p class="italic"> <i>Institution has 6 months to become a participating institution after first application etc. that identifies institution</i></p><p class="italic">(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.</p><p class="italic">The CHAIR: The question is that amendment (2) on sheet 1196, moved by Senator Pratt, be agreed to.</p> -
-
|