Bill
National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Amendment Bill 2023
passed, as at 2024-03-28. Social Services portfolio.
- Sponsor
- Not recorded
- Portfolio
- Social Services
Recorded stages
- introduced — 2023-11-15
- second reading — 2023-11-15
- second reading — 2024-02-06
- other — 2024-02-06
- second reading — 2024-02-07
- second reading — 2024-02-07
- other — 2024-02-07
- committee — 2024-02-07
- third reading — 2024-02-07
- introduced — 2024-02-08
- second reading — 2024-02-08
- second reading — 2024-03-18
- second reading — 2024-03-20
- second reading — 2024-03-20
- committee — 2024-03-20
- third reading — 2024-03-20
- passed — 2024-03-20
- royal assent — 2024-03-28
Divisions
- The majority voted against an [amendment](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2024-03-20.13.18) to the usual second reading motion, which is "*that the bill be read a second time*" (parliamentary jargon for agreeing with the main idea of the bill). This means the original motion will remain unchanged. The amendment had been introduced by Victorian Senator [Lidia Thorpe](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/victoria/lidia_thorpe) (Independent). ### Amendment text > *At the end of the motion, add ", but the Senate notes that:* > >> *(a) a large proportion of First People applicants to the National Redress Scheme are likely to be Stolen Generations Survivors, and to be effective and safe it is imperative the scheme:* >> >>> *(i) ensures access and safety throughout the process as a priority,* >>> >>> *(ii) be treated with the importance and integrity that survivors deserve, and* >>> >>> *(iii) be delivered in a way that avoids all risks of re-traumatising survivors; and,* >> >> *(b) fundamental to achieving these goals is ensuring appropriate support services receive proper, ongoing funding including:* >> >>> *(i) increasing resourcing to ensure proper, ongoing funding to Stolen Generations organisations and First Nations community-controlled healing services,* >>> >>> *(ii) ensuring proper, ongoing funding for redress support services, to allow them to provide access to a suite of counselling services, including financial and legal,* >>> >>> *(iii) improving access to culturally appropriate and trauma-informed professionals, services and interventions,* >>> >>> *(iv) ensuring trauma-aware, healing-informed training for all individuals working across the design and implementation of the scheme, including external organisations and consultants, and* >>> >>> *(v) for non-Indigenous organisations operating in the space, providing careful regulation and monitoring to ensure that they meet the quality, cultural and ethical standards required of the scheme's — 2024-03-20, Senate: negative, ayes 14, noes 20
- The majority voted in favour of a motion that "*[part 2 of schedule 1](https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=LEGISLATION;id=legislation%2Fbills%2Fr7106_first-reps%2F0001;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbills%2Fr7106_first-reps%2F0000%22;rec=0#ef9de053259941cb94df6698327fd429) stand as printed.*" In other words, they voted to keep part 2 of schedule 1 unchanged in the bill. This part concerned serious criminal convictions and applications by persons in gaol. — 2024-03-20, Senate: affirmative, ayes 34, noes 24
- The majority voted against [amendment (1)](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2024-03-20.21.1) introduced by NSW Senator [David Shoebridge](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/nsw/david_shoebridge) (Greens), which means it failed. Mr Shoebridge [explained that](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2024-03-20.21.1): > *This amendment seeks to provide a window of opportunity for survivors and victims of institutional abuse who, following a particularly noxious decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of GLJ, agreed to a much smaller redress payment under the statutory scheme and, by doing so, created a bar for themselves for receiving common law damages.* > > *[...] This amendment says to any of the survivors who agreed to a redress payment in that period, between when GLJ was handed down and the High Court overturned it, that they can revisit that. If one of the reasons why they entered into the redress payment was the GLJ decision, they can apply to the court and have the bar lifted, and they can actually have their civil claim reinstated. It's entirely consistent with what the royal commission recommended for child sexual abuse survivors who'd had their claims dismissed because of extension-of-time applications. It's entirely consistent with what we did to deliver fairness when states and territories and the Commonwealth overturned decades of unfairness in the extension-of-time jurisdiction, and it is just so obviously fair to those survivors.* ### Amendment text > *(1) Schedule 1, page 15 (after line 17), after Part 4, insert:* > > *Part 4A — Civil proceedings after accepting offer of redress* > > *National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Act 2018* > > *19A Section 43* > >> *Before "If", insert "(1)".* > > *19B Section 43* > >> *Omit "this section" (wherever occurring), substitute "this subsection".* > > *19C At the end of section 43* > >> *Add:* >> >>> *Civil proceedings after accepting offer of redress* >>> >>> *( — 2024-03-20, Senate: negative, ayes 12, noes 25
- The majority voted against [request (1) on sheet 2475](https://www.openaustralia.org.au/senate/?gid=2024-03-20.32.1), which means it failed. It was introduced by Victorian Senator [Lidia Thorpe](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/victoria/lidia_thorpe) (Independent). The request was to put an amendment to the bill, as set out below. It would have extended the National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Act 2018 to people who currently reside in Australia. As it stands, the Scheme only applies to Australian citizens and permanent residents. ### Request text > *That the House of Representatives be requested to make the following amendment:* > > *(1)—Schedule 1, page 15 (after line 17), after Part 4, insert:* > > *Part 4B — Expanded access to redress* > > *National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Act 2018* > > *19D Section 4 (paragraph (e) of the paragraph beginning "To be entitled to redress")* > >> *Omit "or a permanent resident", substitute ", a permanent resident or currently resides in Australia".* > > *19E Section 11 (paragraph beginning "Then the person must")* > >> *Omit "or a permanent resident", substitute ", a permanent resident or currently resides in Australia".* > > *19F Paragraph 13(1)(e)* > >> *Repeal the paragraph, substitute:* >> >>> *(e) the person is an Australian citizen or a permanent resident (within the meaning of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007), or a person who currently resides in Australia, at the time the person applies for redress.* > *Statement pursuant to the order of the Senate of 26 June 2000* > > *Amendment (1)* > >> *Amendment (1) is framed as a request because it amends the bill to expand the eligibility criteria for redress payable under the National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Act 2018. The effect of the amendment is to extend eligibility to persons who currently reside in Australia at the time they apply for redress, even if they are not an Australian citiz — 2024-03-20, Senate: negative, ayes 15, noes 22
- The majority voted against [amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 2212](https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/amend/r7106_amend_b3b724ec-3769-4f4d-8c8b-563d1c728ff7/upload_pdf/2212%20CW%20National%20Redress%20Scheme%20for%20Institutional%20Child%20Sexual%20Abuse%20Amendment%20Bill%202023_Shoebridge.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf), which were moved by NSW Senator [David Shoebridge](https://theyvoteforyou.org.au/people/senate/nsw/david_shoebridge) (Greens). This means they were unsuccessful. ### Amendment text > *(1) Clause 2, page 2 (at the end of the table), add:* > >> *4. Schedule 3 The day after this Act receives the Royal Assent.* > > *(2) Page 47 (after line 10), at the end of the Bill, add:* > >> *Schedule 3—Other amendments* >> >> *National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Act 2018* >> >> *1 Section 6 (after the definition of sexual abuse)* >> >>> *Insert:* >>> >>>> *Note: See also section 6A.* >> >> *2 After section 6* >> >>> *Insert:* >>> >>>> *6A Sexual abuse includes virginity testing* >>>> >>>> *To avoid doubt, sexual abuse includes the examination of female genitalia, with or without consent, for the purpose (or purported purpose) of determining virginity.* — 2024-03-20, Senate: negative, ayes 12, noes 23
Plain-language summary
Written by a model from the explanatory memorandum; not the record, as at 2023-11-15.
This bill would change the National Redress Scheme for people who experienced child sexual abuse in institutions, aiming to make it fairer and easier to access.
It would let new information be considered during reviews of decisions, remove the ban on people in prison applying, and allow applications to be reassessed if an institution later joins the scheme.
The bill also updates rules on sharing protected information and fixes rounding provisions for the funder of last resort.
- Allows new information to be provided and considered in review processes.
- Removes the restriction on people in prison making applications.
- Reduces the number of people with serious criminal convictions who must go through special assessment.
- Introduces new authorisations for sharing protected information.
- Allows finalised applications to be reassessed if a named institution later joins the scheme.
- Makes technical amendments to funder of last resort rounding provisions.
Survivors of institutional child sexual abuse who apply for redress, including those in prison or with serious criminal convictions, and participating institutions.
Sources
em
billhome
frl act