National redress scheme
Mr GRIMLEY (Western Victoria) (11:51): My question is for the Attorney-General, and I ask it in the capacity of the Attorney-General as being responsible for the implementation of the royal commission’s recommendations. When the national redress scheme began, following the royal commission, it was far from faultless. I compare it to the infamous Melbourne Response run by George Pell, where survivors were asked to sign a deed of release which stopped them from suing the institution down the track. I understand that this was to limit civil lawsuits, but it only seeks to benefit the institution that inflicted the suffering. Some survivors are seeing other survivors of the same perpetrator receive compensation through the courts and are wondering why they cannot now do the same. Others may not have been mentally ready to go down that path but may well be right now. They also may not have had the evidence at the time of the redress claim, but they may now have that and are ready to proceed. Attorney, will the state government lobby your federal colleagues to have the deeds of release removed from the national redress scheme claims?
Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Attorney-General, Minister for Emergency Services) (11:52): I thank Mr Grimley for his question. Of course there are many redress schemes either that fall into direct responsibility of me as Attorney-General or that I have responsibility for establishing but they might be in someone else’s portfolio, such as forced adoption, as you would be aware. In Victoria all of our state-run redress schemes do not have a limitation on people’s ability to seek other avenues such as civil claim, presumptive rights and the like. You are correct that the federal redress scheme has a limitation. I was not involved at the time of the establishment of that redress scheme. However, it was subject to a lot of negotiations with all the states and all of the relevant organisations and bodies to come up with a redress scheme that was for the benefit of people that were subjected to sexual abuse in institutions.
That redress scheme is subject to review. They are looking at the eligibility and the like. As my role, I contribute to meetings that are conducted across the commonwealth and state jurisdictions. There is a working group that the bureaucrats are involved in, for example. It is always our intention to listen to victim-survivors and bring their stories and their lived experiences, whether it be through their experience in accessing redress or their concerns about how there may be some barriers that they are experiencing in accessing that scheme. There are multiple opportunities for issues such as you have raised to be brought to the table, and at the next meeting these are the types of topics that will be discussed. As I said, there is a current review in relation to the stage 2 process of that redress scheme that is looking at eligibility. These are the issues that can be canvassed in that forum, but as you have identified, it is not a direct responsibility that I hold. Your question asks whether I will lobby. I think it is probably more appropriate for me to raise it at the appropriate time.
Mr GRIMLEY (Western Victoria) (11:54): Thank you, Attorney. You have pretty much covered everything, I think, for the supplementary, but I will raise it regardless because I think it is important. If you receive a Victims of Crime Assistance Tribunal payout as a victim of crime, you are able to sue the perpetrator. If you sue successfully, you have to return your VOCAT money, clearly, otherwise it is double dipping. Interestingly there are instances where you can sue and then get redress, which is another story. Some survivors will never have the money for lawyers or the energy to fight legal battles, so redress is all they desire, but other survivors may decide down the track that they are ready to sue for whatever reason. It seems like we have got a bit of a double standard, like you mentioned, in Victoria for victims of crime and so forth, but the national redress scheme does not allow for sexual abuse survivors to go down the path of a civil litigation. Attorney, if the deeds of release are to remain, what plans does the government have to fix this issue and ensure that victims of sexual abuse are not silenced and have access to civil litigation procedures?
Ms SYMES (Northern Victoria—Leader of the Government, Attorney-General, Minister for Emergency Services) (11:55): Thank you, Mr Grimley. Probably the only information that I did not canvass in my response to your substantive question would be the changes that we made here in Victoria in I think 2019 around restrictions that were placed on people under a deed. We made sure that Victorian courts would have the power to set aside deeds of settlement for sexual cases against the state. So there are, as you have identified, very few limitations in relation to people seeking legal redress as opposed to state-based redress schemes—or legal compensation, probably more appropriately—in Victoria, and that is a position that we hold. The federal system has that barrier, but you can clearly see the Victorian government’s position on Victorian-run redress schemes.