❓ Ms. Sanderson questions the Treasurer on the importance of secure funding for the National Redress Scheme for survivors of sexual abuse. The Treasurer affirms the government's commitment and criticizes the previous government's handling of similar redress schemes.
AnsweredQoN 493Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
NATIONAL REDRESS SCHEME
493. Ms
A. SANDERSON to the Treasurer:
I refer to the state government's
decision to sign up to the National Redress Scheme —
Several members interjected.
The SPEAKER : Members! Start
again, member.
Ms A. SANDERSON : I refer to
the state government's decision to sign up to the National Redress
Scheme and provide responsible funding for the state's participation in
the scheme. Can the Treasurer outline to the house why it is important for
survivors of sexual abuse that this scheme is provided with secure, reliable
and responsible funding?
493. Ms
A. SANDERSON to the Treasurer:
I refer to the state government's
decision to sign up to the National Redress Scheme —
Several members interjected.
The SPEAKER : Members! Start
again, member.
Ms A. SANDERSON : I refer to
the state government's decision to sign up to the National Redress
Scheme and provide responsible funding for the state's participation in
the scheme. Can the Treasurer outline to the house why it is important for
survivors of sexual abuse that this scheme is provided with secure, reliable
and responsible funding?
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for the question.
As the Premier announced yesterday, the WA government has made the right
decision that I think all members of this house would support—that is,
to sign up to the National Redress Scheme. We have done that. Importantly, we
have also provided a reliable funding mechanism for that scheme. We did that
because, although not dependent upon each other and we are committed to
national redress regardless, we are not in a position to simply layer spend
upon spend like the former government did. Even the most morally virtuous
decisions of government have to be funded, and that is what we have decided to
do. Indeed, one of the very first questions I received when the Premier signed
up was, ''How are you going to pay for this?'' We now have an
answer for that. I was not surprised, I dare say, that the Leader of the
Opposition is unable to learn from his time in government. When asked yesterday
about the commercialisation of the Landgate asset, the Leader of the Opposition
said that we should fund it no matter the source; the source should not matter.
Ultimately, the days of simply spending without worrying about revenue are
over.
That is in striking contrast with
the previous government when it had a larger than expected increase in GST; it
was very quick to go out and spend it on a range of different things at a factor
of about 10 times more than the extra revenue, yet when it came to the spend
side, it was not so interested in actually finding a funding source. One of the
reasons we did that is that we saw what happened when this did not happen last
time with Redress WA. Do members remember what happened with Redress WA? I remind
colleagues that when the former government had and was running large surpluses
after inheriting net debt-free in the general government sector, it halved
payments to those survivors in the Redress WA scheme. I want to remind the
house of the responses of some of those people. I refer to Michelle Stubbs, an
adult survivor of child abuse in WA, who said that it was not right and that it
was legally immoral. There was a range of letters, but I refer to another one
from a victim who said that he thought that applying for redress would somehow
ease the pain, but that that had not been the case and that it had opened up
old wounds that kept festering, only to be compounded by the government's
insensitive decision to reduce the maximum amount payable to victims. That is
what the Leader of the Liberal Party did because he did not care. He simply cut
the maximum payment. After asking those people to come forward and explain what
had happened to them, he then said, ''Actually, we're going to
cut in half what we're going to pay to you.''
We in the Labor Party do not want to
do that. We have signed up, in good faith, to an important mechanism that will
require national ventilation of a period of great shame for this country, and
we want to ensure that it has a reliable funding source. I do not subscribe to
the Nahan strategy or Nahan methodology of spending without restraint, not
worrying about where the money comes from. Those days are over, for the very
reason of the legacy left by the former Liberal government.
As the Premier announced yesterday, the WA government has made the right
decision that I think all members of this house would support—that is,
to sign up to the National Redress Scheme. We have done that. Importantly, we
have also provided a reliable funding mechanism for that scheme. We did that
because, although not dependent upon each other and we are committed to
national redress regardless, we are not in a position to simply layer spend
upon spend like the former government did. Even the most morally virtuous
decisions of government have to be funded, and that is what we have decided to
do. Indeed, one of the very first questions I received when the Premier signed
up was, ''How are you going to pay for this?'' We now have an
answer for that. I was not surprised, I dare say, that the Leader of the
Opposition is unable to learn from his time in government. When asked yesterday
about the commercialisation of the Landgate asset, the Leader of the Opposition
said that we should fund it no matter the source; the source should not matter.
Ultimately, the days of simply spending without worrying about revenue are
over.
That is in striking contrast with
the previous government when it had a larger than expected increase in GST; it
was very quick to go out and spend it on a range of different things at a factor
of about 10 times more than the extra revenue, yet when it came to the spend
side, it was not so interested in actually finding a funding source. One of the
reasons we did that is that we saw what happened when this did not happen last
time with Redress WA. Do members remember what happened with Redress WA? I remind
colleagues that when the former government had and was running large surpluses
after inheriting net debt-free in the general government sector, it halved
payments to those survivors in the Redress WA scheme. I want to remind the
house of the responses of some of those people. I refer to Michelle Stubbs, an
adult survivor of child abuse in WA, who said that it was not right and that it
was legally immoral. There was a range of letters, but I refer to another one
from a victim who said that he thought that applying for redress would somehow
ease the pain, but that that had not been the case and that it had opened up
old wounds that kept festering, only to be compounded by the government's
insensitive decision to reduce the maximum amount payable to victims. That is
what the Leader of the Liberal Party did because he did not care. He simply cut
the maximum payment. After asking those people to come forward and explain what
had happened to them, he then said, ''Actually, we're going to
cut in half what we're going to pay to you.''
We in the Labor Party do not want to
do that. We have signed up, in good faith, to an important mechanism that will
require national ventilation of a period of great shame for this country, and
we want to ensure that it has a reliable funding source. I do not subscribe to
the Nahan strategy or Nahan methodology of spending without restraint, not
worrying about where the money comes from. Those days are over, for the very
reason of the legacy left by the former Liberal government.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.