❓ Opposition questions the Premier's decision to reduce Redress WA payments for abuse survivors. Premier defends the decision, highlighting the previous government's funding and the need to ensure all applicants receive some payment.
AnsweredQoN 575Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
REDRESS WA — PAYMENTS
Before I ask my question, I acknowledge Leonie Sheedy and the supporters of the Care Leavers of Australia Network and other organisations, who attended today’s rally on the steps of Parliament House and who have joined us in the public gallery. I refer to the Premier’s government’s decision to cut by almost half the maximum amount payable through Redress WA to some of our most vulnerable community members who have suffered abuse in state and non-government institutions. (1) Does the Premier support the view of Michelle Stubbs, a member of the government’s Ministerial Advisory Council on Child Protection, that these people should be entitled to claim up to $80 000, as they were originally promised? (2) Will the Premier now reverse this heartless decision? (3) Will the Premier allow these people to receive what they were promised in return for not suing the state, so they can deal with the past and hopefully move forward with their lives? Mr C.J. BARNETT
Before I ask my question, I acknowledge Leonie Sheedy and the supporters of the Care Leavers of Australia Network and other organisations, who attended today’s rally on the steps of Parliament House and who have joined us in the public gallery. I refer to the Premier’s government’s decision to cut by almost half the maximum amount payable through Redress WA to some of our most vulnerable community members who have suffered abuse in state and non-government institutions. (1) Does the Premier support the view of Michelle Stubbs, a member of the government’s Ministerial Advisory Council on Child Protection, that these people should be entitled to claim up to $80 000, as they were originally promised? (2) Will the Premier now reverse this heartless decision? (3) Will the Premier allow these people to receive what they were promised in return for not suing the state, so they can deal with the past and hopefully move forward with their lives? Mr C.J. BARNETT
AnswerView source ↗
(1)-(3) I think the final comment of the Leader of the Opposition is pertinent: they will not receive what they were promised. Is the Leader of the Opposition suggesting that the previous Labor government promised these people $80 000? Mr E.S. Ripper : It was a maximum payment of $80 000. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Having talked to a large number of people outside, and chatted with them for about half an hour, I am sure that no amount of money can make up for the abuse and the harm that they suffered as children. This Parliament during the time of the Court government, on a motion moved by the then former Labor opposition, formally passed a motion of apology for the neglect and abuse, including sexual, mental and physical abuse, of many children who had been in the care of the state. There were some 54 000 children in the care of the state between 1947 and 2006. Of those, it is thought that perhaps 10 000—an extraordinarily large number—suffered some form of harm or damage. Following the motion of apology moved in this house, the Redress WA scheme was developed and announced publicly by the previous government in late 2007. Under that scheme, the previous government allocated $90.2 million as a fund for ex gratia payments, and additional money was made available for administration and for the provision of counselling where it was required, which came to a total sum of $114 million. When that was announced, it was also announced that a cap of $80 000 would be set; in other words, no payment to any individual would exceed that amount. If we do the sums—the basic arithmetic of $90 million divided by 9 700 applicants—we can see that the result would be on average no more than about $10 000 for each applicant. There will be all sorts of different circumstances. The previous government promised $90.2 million, and this government is honouring that pledge. There is $90.2 million available. Each one of the 9 700 applicants will be assessed individually. To this point, about 114 of them have received payment. They are elderly people, or people with serious health issues. Those payments will be made as promptly as possible. I anticipate that as the applications are assessed and the payments are made, the $90.2 million set aside by the previous government will prove not to be adequate. The government will add additional funding when that point is reached. I do not know what that quantum will be, but in an effort to be absolutely open, upfront and honest, we have simply made the point that the cap of $80 000 set by the previous government unfairly raised the expectations of many people that they would receive $80 000 or something in that vicinity. I do not in any way dismiss the horrible and cruel abuse that these people suffered as children. However, the previous government created an expectation that payments for a large number of applicants might be in the region of around $80 000. If that is what the previous government believed, it would have allocated far more than $90.2 million—probably closer to double that amount. The opposition should not come into Parliament and say that the government has cut the scheme in half. We have set a cap of $45 000 so that all applicants will receive some level of ex gratia payment. As I tried to say to the people outside, this is in no way compensation. No amount of money can make up for the abuse that they suffered as children, and this generation is simply making an ex gratia payment as a form of apology to a previous generation. I will also add the point that while these children were in the care of the state, this was an agreement that was negotiated between the British and Australian governments. They arrived here as child migrants and many of them—the majority—were placed in non-government institutions; they were placed in churches and missions. Ms M.M. Quirk : Blame the churches! Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am not shifting the blame; I am simply recording the facts. We are relying on those institutions to provide us with information and, as the minister and I said as we were talking to some of the people outside, if evidence comes forward that can identify and substantiate criminal acts, the people responsible will be prosecuted—after all those years, they will be prosecuted. A number of people made the point to me today that the money does not matter, and I can understand that after their experiences perhaps the money seems almost irrelevant. They made the point that they want counselling and that they want a sense of finality. All that this generation and Parliament can do is apologise and make some gesture, and that is what this is. The gesture is at least $90 million plus counselling, plus what it takes to provide a fair and equitable outcome, subject to a cap of $45 000. For the Labor Party to continue to suggest that people are going to get $80 000 is basically misleading. It raised expectations way beyond anything that could ever have been achieved. Had members opposite believed that people were going to get $80 000, they would have put twice the amount of funding into it. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! Member for Mandurah!
I refer to the Premier’s government’s decision to cut by almost half the maximum amount payable through Redress WA to some of our most vulnerable community members who have suffered abuse in state and non-government institutions. (1) Does the Premier support the view of Michelle Stubbs, a member of the government’s Ministerial Advisory Council on Child Protection, that these people should be entitled to claim up to $80 000, as they were originally promised? (2) Will the Premier now reverse this heartless decision? (3) Will the Premier allow these people to receive what they were promised in return for not suing the state, so they can deal with the past and hopefully move forward with their lives? Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: (1)-(3) I think the final comment of the Leader of the Opposition is pertinent: they will not receive what they were promised. Is the Leader of the Opposition suggesting that the previous Labor government promised these people $80 000? Mr E.S. Ripper : It was a maximum payment of $80 000. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Having talked to a large number of people outside, and chatted with them for about half an hour, I am sure that no amount of money can make up for the abuse and the harm that they suffered as children. This Parliament during the time of the Court government, on a motion moved by the then former Labor opposition, formally passed a motion of apology for the neglect and abuse, including sexual, mental and physical abuse, of many children who had been in the care of the state. There were some 54 000 children in the care of the state between 1947 and 2006. Of those, it is thought that perhaps 10 000—an extraordinarily large number—suffered some form of harm or damage. Following the motion of apology moved in this house, the Redress WA scheme was developed and announced publicly by the previous government in late 2007. Under that scheme, the previous government allocated $90.2 million as a fund for ex gratia payments, and additional money was made available for administration and for the provision of counselling where it was required, which came to a total sum of $114 million. When that was announced, it was also announced that a cap of $80 000 would be set; in other words, no payment to any individual would exceed that amount. If we do the sums—the basic arithmetic of $90 million divided by 9 700 applicants—we can see that the result would be on average no more than about $10 000 for each applicant. There will be all sorts of different circumstances. The previous government promised $90.2 million, and this government is honouring that pledge. There is $90.2 million available. Each one of the 9 700 applicants will be assessed individually. To this point, about 114 of them have received payment. They are elderly people, or people with serious health issues. Those payments will be made as promptly as possible. I anticipate that as the applications are assessed and the payments are made, the $90.2 million set aside by the previous government will prove not to be adequate. The government will add additional funding when that point is reached. I do not know what that quantum will be, but in an effort to be absolutely open, upfront and honest, we have simply made the point that the cap of $80 000 set by the previous government unfairly raised the expectations of many people that they would receive $80 000 or something in that vicinity. I do not in any way dismiss the horrible and cruel abuse that these people suffered as children. However, the previous government created an expectation that payments for a large number of applicants might be in the region of around $80 000. If that is what the previous government believed, it would have allocated far more than $90.2 million—probably closer to double that amount. The opposition should not come into Parliament and say that the government has cut the scheme in half. We have set a cap of $45 000 so that all applicants will receive some level of ex gratia payment. As I tried to say to the people outside, this is in no way compensation. No amount of money can make up for the abuse that they suffered as children, and this generation is simply making an ex gratia payment as a form of apology to a previous generation. I will also add the point that while these children were in the care of the state, this was an agreement that was negotiated between the British and Australian governments. They arrived here as child migrants and many of them—the majority—were placed in non-government institutions; they were placed in churches and missions. Ms M.M. Quirk : Blame the churches! Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am not shifting the blame; I am simply recording the facts. We are relying on those institutions to provide us with information and, as the minister and I said as we were talking to some of the people outside, if evidence comes forward that can identify and substantiate criminal acts, the people responsible will be prosecuted—after all those years, they will be prosecuted. A number of people made the point to me today that the money does not matter, and I can understand that after their experiences perhaps the money seems almost irrelevant. They made the point that they want counselling and that they want a sense of finality. All that this generation and Parliament can do is apologise and make some gesture, and that is what this is. The gesture is at least $90 million plus counselling, plus what it takes to provide a fair and equitable outcome, subject to a cap of $45 000. For the Labor Party to continue to suggest that people are going to get $80 000 is basically misleading. It raised expectations way beyond anything that could ever have been achieved. Had members opposite believed that people were going to get $80 000, they would have put twice the amount of funding into it. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! Member for Mandurah!
(1) Does the Premier support the view of Michelle Stubbs, a member of the government’s Ministerial Advisory Council on Child Protection, that these people should be entitled to claim up to $80 000, as they were originally promised? (2) Will the Premier now reverse this heartless decision? (3) Will the Premier allow these people to receive what they were promised in return for not suing the state, so they can deal with the past and hopefully move forward with their lives? Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: (1)-(3) I think the final comment of the Leader of the Opposition is pertinent: they will not receive what they were promised. Is the Leader of the Opposition suggesting that the previous Labor government promised these people $80 000? Mr E.S. Ripper : It was a maximum payment of $80 000. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Having talked to a large number of people outside, and chatted with them for about half an hour, I am sure that no amount of money can make up for the abuse and the harm that they suffered as children. This Parliament during the time of the Court government, on a motion moved by the then former Labor opposition, formally passed a motion of apology for the neglect and abuse, including sexual, mental and physical abuse, of many children who had been in the care of the state. There were some 54 000 children in the care of the state between 1947 and 2006. Of those, it is thought that perhaps 10 000—an extraordinarily large number—suffered some form of harm or damage. Following the motion of apology moved in this house, the Redress WA scheme was developed and announced publicly by the previous government in late 2007. Under that scheme, the previous government allocated $90.2 million as a fund for ex gratia payments, and additional money was made available for administration and for the provision of counselling where it was required, which came to a total sum of $114 million. When that was announced, it was also announced that a cap of $80 000 would be set; in other words, no payment to any individual would exceed that amount. If we do the sums—the basic arithmetic of $90 million divided by 9 700 applicants—we can see that the result would be on average no more than about $10 000 for each applicant. There will be all sorts of different circumstances. The previous government promised $90.2 million, and this government is honouring that pledge. There is $90.2 million available. Each one of the 9 700 applicants will be assessed individually. To this point, about 114 of them have received payment. They are elderly people, or people with serious health issues. Those payments will be made as promptly as possible. I anticipate that as the applications are assessed and the payments are made, the $90.2 million set aside by the previous government will prove not to be adequate. The government will add additional funding when that point is reached. I do not know what that quantum will be, but in an effort to be absolutely open, upfront and honest, we have simply made the point that the cap of $80 000 set by the previous government unfairly raised the expectations of many people that they would receive $80 000 or something in that vicinity. I do not in any way dismiss the horrible and cruel abuse that these people suffered as children. However, the previous government created an expectation that payments for a large number of applicants might be in the region of around $80 000. If that is what the previous government believed, it would have allocated far more than $90.2 million—probably closer to double that amount. The opposition should not come into Parliament and say that the government has cut the scheme in half. We have set a cap of $45 000 so that all applicants will receive some level of ex gratia payment. As I tried to say to the people outside, this is in no way compensation. No amount of money can make up for the abuse that they suffered as children, and this generation is simply making an ex gratia payment as a form of apology to a previous generation. I will also add the point that while these children were in the care of the state, this was an agreement that was negotiated between the British and Australian governments. They arrived here as child migrants and many of them—the majority—were placed in non-government institutions; they were placed in churches and missions. Ms M.M. Quirk : Blame the churches! Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am not shifting the blame; I am simply recording the facts. We are relying on those institutions to provide us with information and, as the minister and I said as we were talking to some of the people outside, if evidence comes forward that can identify and substantiate criminal acts, the people responsible will be prosecuted—after all those years, they will be prosecuted. A number of people made the point to me today that the money does not matter, and I can understand that after their experiences perhaps the money seems almost irrelevant. They made the point that they want counselling and that they want a sense of finality. All that this generation and Parliament can do is apologise and make some gesture, and that is what this is. The gesture is at least $90 million plus counselling, plus what it takes to provide a fair and equitable outcome, subject to a cap of $45 000. For the Labor Party to continue to suggest that people are going to get $80 000 is basically misleading. It raised expectations way beyond anything that could ever have been achieved. Had members opposite believed that people were going to get $80 000, they would have put twice the amount of funding into it. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! Member for Mandurah!
(2) Will the Premier now reverse this heartless decision? (3) Will the Premier allow these people to receive what they were promised in return for not suing the state, so they can deal with the past and hopefully move forward with their lives? Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: (1)-(3) I think the final comment of the Leader of the Opposition is pertinent: they will not receive what they were promised. Is the Leader of the Opposition suggesting that the previous Labor government promised these people $80 000? Mr E.S. Ripper : It was a maximum payment of $80 000. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Having talked to a large number of people outside, and chatted with them for about half an hour, I am sure that no amount of money can make up for the abuse and the harm that they suffered as children. This Parliament during the time of the Court government, on a motion moved by the then former Labor opposition, formally passed a motion of apology for the neglect and abuse, including sexual, mental and physical abuse, of many children who had been in the care of the state. There were some 54 000 children in the care of the state between 1947 and 2006. Of those, it is thought that perhaps 10 000—an extraordinarily large number—suffered some form of harm or damage. Following the motion of apology moved in this house, the Redress WA scheme was developed and announced publicly by the previous government in late 2007. Under that scheme, the previous government allocated $90.2 million as a fund for ex gratia payments, and additional money was made available for administration and for the provision of counselling where it was required, which came to a total sum of $114 million. When that was announced, it was also announced that a cap of $80 000 would be set; in other words, no payment to any individual would exceed that amount. If we do the sums—the basic arithmetic of $90 million divided by 9 700 applicants—we can see that the result would be on average no more than about $10 000 for each applicant. There will be all sorts of different circumstances. The previous government promised $90.2 million, and this government is honouring that pledge. There is $90.2 million available. Each one of the 9 700 applicants will be assessed individually. To this point, about 114 of them have received payment. They are elderly people, or people with serious health issues. Those payments will be made as promptly as possible. I anticipate that as the applications are assessed and the payments are made, the $90.2 million set aside by the previous government will prove not to be adequate. The government will add additional funding when that point is reached. I do not know what that quantum will be, but in an effort to be absolutely open, upfront and honest, we have simply made the point that the cap of $80 000 set by the previous government unfairly raised the expectations of many people that they would receive $80 000 or something in that vicinity. I do not in any way dismiss the horrible and cruel abuse that these people suffered as children. However, the previous government created an expectation that payments for a large number of applicants might be in the region of around $80 000. If that is what the previous government believed, it would have allocated far more than $90.2 million—probably closer to double that amount. The opposition should not come into Parliament and say that the government has cut the scheme in half. We have set a cap of $45 000 so that all applicants will receive some level of ex gratia payment. As I tried to say to the people outside, this is in no way compensation. No amount of money can make up for the abuse that they suffered as children, and this generation is simply making an ex gratia payment as a form of apology to a previous generation. I will also add the point that while these children were in the care of the state, this was an agreement that was negotiated between the British and Australian governments. They arrived here as child migrants and many of them—the majority—were placed in non-government institutions; they were placed in churches and missions. Ms M.M. Quirk : Blame the churches! Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am not shifting the blame; I am simply recording the facts. We are relying on those institutions to provide us with information and, as the minister and I said as we were talking to some of the people outside, if evidence comes forward that can identify and substantiate criminal acts, the people responsible will be prosecuted—after all those years, they will be prosecuted. A number of people made the point to me today that the money does not matter, and I can understand that after their experiences perhaps the money seems almost irrelevant. They made the point that they want counselling and that they want a sense of finality. All that this generation and Parliament can do is apologise and make some gesture, and that is what this is. The gesture is at least $90 million plus counselling, plus what it takes to provide a fair and equitable outcome, subject to a cap of $45 000. For the Labor Party to continue to suggest that people are going to get $80 000 is basically misleading. It raised expectations way beyond anything that could ever have been achieved. Had members opposite believed that people were going to get $80 000, they would have put twice the amount of funding into it. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! Member for Mandurah!
(3) Will the Premier allow these people to receive what they were promised in return for not suing the state, so they can deal with the past and hopefully move forward with their lives? Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: (1)-(3) I think the final comment of the Leader of the Opposition is pertinent: they will not receive what they were promised. Is the Leader of the Opposition suggesting that the previous Labor government promised these people $80 000? Mr E.S. Ripper : It was a maximum payment of $80 000. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Having talked to a large number of people outside, and chatted with them for about half an hour, I am sure that no amount of money can make up for the abuse and the harm that they suffered as children. This Parliament during the time of the Court government, on a motion moved by the then former Labor opposition, formally passed a motion of apology for the neglect and abuse, including sexual, mental and physical abuse, of many children who had been in the care of the state. There were some 54 000 children in the care of the state between 1947 and 2006. Of those, it is thought that perhaps 10 000—an extraordinarily large number—suffered some form of harm or damage. Following the motion of apology moved in this house, the Redress WA scheme was developed and announced publicly by the previous government in late 2007. Under that scheme, the previous government allocated $90.2 million as a fund for ex gratia payments, and additional money was made available for administration and for the provision of counselling where it was required, which came to a total sum of $114 million. When that was announced, it was also announced that a cap of $80 000 would be set; in other words, no payment to any individual would exceed that amount. If we do the sums—the basic arithmetic of $90 million divided by 9 700 applicants—we can see that the result would be on average no more than about $10 000 for each applicant. There will be all sorts of different circumstances. The previous government promised $90.2 million, and this government is honouring that pledge. There is $90.2 million available. Each one of the 9 700 applicants will be assessed individually. To this point, about 114 of them have received payment. They are elderly people, or people with serious health issues. Those payments will be made as promptly as possible. I anticipate that as the applications are assessed and the payments are made, the $90.2 million set aside by the previous government will prove not to be adequate. The government will add additional funding when that point is reached. I do not know what that quantum will be, but in an effort to be absolutely open, upfront and honest, we have simply made the point that the cap of $80 000 set by the previous government unfairly raised the expectations of many people that they would receive $80 000 or something in that vicinity. I do not in any way dismiss the horrible and cruel abuse that these people suffered as children. However, the previous government created an expectation that payments for a large number of applicants might be in the region of around $80 000. If that is what the previous government believed, it would have allocated far more than $90.2 million—probably closer to double that amount. The opposition should not come into Parliament and say that the government has cut the scheme in half. We have set a cap of $45 000 so that all applicants will receive some level of ex gratia payment. As I tried to say to the people outside, this is in no way compensation. No amount of money can make up for the abuse that they suffered as children, and this generation is simply making an ex gratia payment as a form of apology to a previous generation. I will also add the point that while these children were in the care of the state, this was an agreement that was negotiated between the British and Australian governments. They arrived here as child migrants and many of them—the majority—were placed in non-government institutions; they were placed in churches and missions. Ms M.M. Quirk : Blame the churches! Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am not shifting the blame; I am simply recording the facts. We are relying on those institutions to provide us with information and, as the minister and I said as we were talking to some of the people outside, if evidence comes forward that can identify and substantiate criminal acts, the people responsible will be prosecuted—after all those years, they will be prosecuted. A number of people made the point to me today that the money does not matter, and I can understand that after their experiences perhaps the money seems almost irrelevant. They made the point that they want counselling and that they want a sense of finality. All that this generation and Parliament can do is apologise and make some gesture, and that is what this is. The gesture is at least $90 million plus counselling, plus what it takes to provide a fair and equitable outcome, subject to a cap of $45 000. For the Labor Party to continue to suggest that people are going to get $80 000 is basically misleading. It raised expectations way beyond anything that could ever have been achieved. Had members opposite believed that people were going to get $80 000, they would have put twice the amount of funding into it. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! Member for Mandurah!
Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: (1)-(3) I think the final comment of the Leader of the Opposition is pertinent: they will not receive what they were promised. Is the Leader of the Opposition suggesting that the previous Labor government promised these people $80 000? Mr E.S. Ripper : It was a maximum payment of $80 000. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Having talked to a large number of people outside, and chatted with them for about half an hour, I am sure that no amount of money can make up for the abuse and the harm that they suffered as children. This Parliament during the time of the Court government, on a motion moved by the then former Labor opposition, formally passed a motion of apology for the neglect and abuse, including sexual, mental and physical abuse, of many children who had been in the care of the state. There were some 54 000 children in the care of the state between 1947 and 2006. Of those, it is thought that perhaps 10 000—an extraordinarily large number—suffered some form of harm or damage. Following the motion of apology moved in this house, the Redress WA scheme was developed and announced publicly by the previous government in late 2007. Under that scheme, the previous government allocated $90.2 million as a fund for ex gratia payments, and additional money was made available for administration and for the provision of counselling where it was required, which came to a total sum of $114 million. When that was announced, it was also announced that a cap of $80 000 would be set; in other words, no payment to any individual would exceed that amount. If we do the sums—the basic arithmetic of $90 million divided by 9 700 applicants—we can see that the result would be on average no more than about $10 000 for each applicant. There will be all sorts of different circumstances. The previous government promised $90.2 million, and this government is honouring that pledge. There is $90.2 million available. Each one of the 9 700 applicants will be assessed individually. To this point, about 114 of them have received payment. They are elderly people, or people with serious health issues. Those payments will be made as promptly as possible. I anticipate that as the applications are assessed and the payments are made, the $90.2 million set aside by the previous government will prove not to be adequate. The government will add additional funding when that point is reached. I do not know what that quantum will be, but in an effort to be absolutely open, upfront and honest, we have simply made the point that the cap of $80 000 set by the previous government unfairly raised the expectations of many people that they would receive $80 000 or something in that vicinity. I do not in any way dismiss the horrible and cruel abuse that these people suffered as children. However, the previous government created an expectation that payments for a large number of applicants might be in the region of around $80 000. If that is what the previous government believed, it would have allocated far more than $90.2 million—probably closer to double that amount. The opposition should not come into Parliament and say that the government has cut the scheme in half. We have set a cap of $45 000 so that all applicants will receive some level of ex gratia payment. As I tried to say to the people outside, this is in no way compensation. No amount of money can make up for the abuse that they suffered as children, and this generation is simply making an ex gratia payment as a form of apology to a previous generation. I will also add the point that while these children were in the care of the state, this was an agreement that was negotiated between the British and Australian governments. They arrived here as child migrants and many of them—the majority—were placed in non-government institutions; they were placed in churches and missions. Ms M.M. Quirk : Blame the churches! Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am not shifting the blame; I am simply recording the facts. We are relying on those institutions to provide us with information and, as the minister and I said as we were talking to some of the people outside, if evidence comes forward that can identify and substantiate criminal acts, the people responsible will be prosecuted—after all those years, they will be prosecuted. A number of people made the point to me today that the money does not matter, and I can understand that after their experiences perhaps the money seems almost irrelevant. They made the point that they want counselling and that they want a sense of finality. All that this generation and Parliament can do is apologise and make some gesture, and that is what this is. The gesture is at least $90 million plus counselling, plus what it takes to provide a fair and equitable outcome, subject to a cap of $45 000. For the Labor Party to continue to suggest that people are going to get $80 000 is basically misleading. It raised expectations way beyond anything that could ever have been achieved. Had members opposite believed that people were going to get $80 000, they would have put twice the amount of funding into it. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! Member for Mandurah!
(1)-(3) I think the final comment of the Leader of the Opposition is pertinent: they will not receive what they were promised. Is the Leader of the Opposition suggesting that the previous Labor government promised these people $80 000? Mr E.S. Ripper : It was a maximum payment of $80 000. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Having talked to a large number of people outside, and chatted with them for about half an hour, I am sure that no amount of money can make up for the abuse and the harm that they suffered as children. This Parliament during the time of the Court government, on a motion moved by the then former Labor opposition, formally passed a motion of apology for the neglect and abuse, including sexual, mental and physical abuse, of many children who had been in the care of the state. There were some 54 000 children in the care of the state between 1947 and 2006. Of those, it is thought that perhaps 10 000—an extraordinarily large number—suffered some form of harm or damage. Following the motion of apology moved in this house, the Redress WA scheme was developed and announced publicly by the previous government in late 2007. Under that scheme, the previous government allocated $90.2 million as a fund for ex gratia payments, and additional money was made available for administration and for the provision of counselling where it was required, which came to a total sum of $114 million. When that was announced, it was also announced that a cap of $80 000 would be set; in other words, no payment to any individual would exceed that amount. If we do the sums—the basic arithmetic of $90 million divided by 9 700 applicants—we can see that the result would be on average no more than about $10 000 for each applicant. There will be all sorts of different circumstances. The previous government promised $90.2 million, and this government is honouring that pledge. There is $90.2 million available. Each one of the 9 700 applicants will be assessed individually. To this point, about 114 of them have received payment. They are elderly people, or people with serious health issues. Those payments will be made as promptly as possible. I anticipate that as the applications are assessed and the payments are made, the $90.2 million set aside by the previous government will prove not to be adequate. The government will add additional funding when that point is reached. I do not know what that quantum will be, but in an effort to be absolutely open, upfront and honest, we have simply made the point that the cap of $80 000 set by the previous government unfairly raised the expectations of many people that they would receive $80 000 or something in that vicinity. I do not in any way dismiss the horrible and cruel abuse that these people suffered as children. However, the previous government created an expectation that payments for a large number of applicants might be in the region of around $80 000. If that is what the previous government believed, it would have allocated far more than $90.2 million—probably closer to double that amount. The opposition should not come into Parliament and say that the government has cut the scheme in half. We have set a cap of $45 000 so that all applicants will receive some level of ex gratia payment. As I tried to say to the people outside, this is in no way compensation. No amount of money can make up for the abuse that they suffered as children, and this generation is simply making an ex gratia payment as a form of apology to a previous generation. I will also add the point that while these children were in the care of the state, this was an agreement that was negotiated between the British and Australian governments. They arrived here as child migrants and many of them—the majority—were placed in non-government institutions; they were placed in churches and missions. Ms M.M. Quirk : Blame the churches! Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am not shifting the blame; I am simply recording the facts. We are relying on those institutions to provide us with information and, as the minister and I said as we were talking to some of the people outside, if evidence comes forward that can identify and substantiate criminal acts, the people responsible will be prosecuted—after all those years, they will be prosecuted. A number of people made the point to me today that the money does not matter, and I can understand that after their experiences perhaps the money seems almost irrelevant. They made the point that they want counselling and that they want a sense of finality. All that this generation and Parliament can do is apologise and make some gesture, and that is what this is. The gesture is at least $90 million plus counselling, plus what it takes to provide a fair and equitable outcome, subject to a cap of $45 000. For the Labor Party to continue to suggest that people are going to get $80 000 is basically misleading. It raised expectations way beyond anything that could ever have been achieved. Had members opposite believed that people were going to get $80 000, they would have put twice the amount of funding into it. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! Member for Mandurah!
Mr E.S. Ripper : It was a maximum payment of $80 000. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Having talked to a large number of people outside, and chatted with them for about half an hour, I am sure that no amount of money can make up for the abuse and the harm that they suffered as children. This Parliament during the time of the Court government, on a motion moved by the then former Labor opposition, formally passed a motion of apology for the neglect and abuse, including sexual, mental and physical abuse, of many children who had been in the care of the state. There were some 54 000 children in the care of the state between 1947 and 2006. Of those, it is thought that perhaps 10 000—an extraordinarily large number—suffered some form of harm or damage. Following the motion of apology moved in this house, the Redress WA scheme was developed and announced publicly by the previous government in late 2007. Under that scheme, the previous government allocated $90.2 million as a fund for ex gratia payments, and additional money was made available for administration and for the provision of counselling where it was required, which came to a total sum of $114 million. When that was announced, it was also announced that a cap of $80 000 would be set; in other words, no payment to any individual would exceed that amount. If we do the sums—the basic arithmetic of $90 million divided by 9 700 applicants—we can see that the result would be on average no more than about $10 000 for each applicant. There will be all sorts of different circumstances. The previous government promised $90.2 million, and this government is honouring that pledge. There is $90.2 million available. Each one of the 9 700 applicants will be assessed individually. To this point, about 114 of them have received payment. They are elderly people, or people with serious health issues. Those payments will be made as promptly as possible. I anticipate that as the applications are assessed and the payments are made, the $90.2 million set aside by the previous government will prove not to be adequate. The government will add additional funding when that point is reached. I do not know what that quantum will be, but in an effort to be absolutely open, upfront and honest, we have simply made the point that the cap of $80 000 set by the previous government unfairly raised the expectations of many people that they would receive $80 000 or something in that vicinity. I do not in any way dismiss the horrible and cruel abuse that these people suffered as children. However, the previous government created an expectation that payments for a large number of applicants might be in the region of around $80 000. If that is what the previous government believed, it would have allocated far more than $90.2 million—probably closer to double that amount. The opposition should not come into Parliament and say that the government has cut the scheme in half. We have set a cap of $45 000 so that all applicants will receive some level of ex gratia payment. As I tried to say to the people outside, this is in no way compensation. No amount of money can make up for the abuse that they suffered as children, and this generation is simply making an ex gratia payment as a form of apology to a previous generation. I will also add the point that while these children were in the care of the state, this was an agreement that was negotiated between the British and Australian governments. They arrived here as child migrants and many of them—the majority—were placed in non-government institutions; they were placed in churches and missions. Ms M.M. Quirk : Blame the churches! Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am not shifting the blame; I am simply recording the facts. We are relying on those institutions to provide us with information and, as the minister and I said as we were talking to some of the people outside, if evidence comes forward that can identify and substantiate criminal acts, the people responsible will be prosecuted—after all those years, they will be prosecuted. A number of people made the point to me today that the money does not matter, and I can understand that after their experiences perhaps the money seems almost irrelevant. They made the point that they want counselling and that they want a sense of finality. All that this generation and Parliament can do is apologise and make some gesture, and that is what this is. The gesture is at least $90 million plus counselling, plus what it takes to provide a fair and equitable outcome, subject to a cap of $45 000. For the Labor Party to continue to suggest that people are going to get $80 000 is basically misleading. It raised expectations way beyond anything that could ever have been achieved. Had members opposite believed that people were going to get $80 000, they would have put twice the amount of funding into it. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! Member for Mandurah!
Mr C.J. BARNETT : Having talked to a large number of people outside, and chatted with them for about half an hour, I am sure that no amount of money can make up for the abuse and the harm that they suffered as children. This Parliament during the time of the Court government, on a motion moved by the then former Labor opposition, formally passed a motion of apology for the neglect and abuse, including sexual, mental and physical abuse, of many children who had been in the care of the state. There were some 54 000 children in the care of the state between 1947 and 2006. Of those, it is thought that perhaps 10 000—an extraordinarily large number—suffered some form of harm or damage. Following the motion of apology moved in this house, the Redress WA scheme was developed and announced publicly by the previous government in late 2007. Under that scheme, the previous government allocated $90.2 million as a fund for ex gratia payments, and additional money was made available for administration and for the provision of counselling where it was required, which came to a total sum of $114 million. When that was announced, it was also announced that a cap of $80 000 would be set; in other words, no payment to any individual would exceed that amount. If we do the sums—the basic arithmetic of $90 million divided by 9 700 applicants—we can see that the result would be on average no more than about $10 000 for each applicant. There will be all sorts of different circumstances. The previous government promised $90.2 million, and this government is honouring that pledge. There is $90.2 million available. Each one of the 9 700 applicants will be assessed individually. To this point, about 114 of them have received payment. They are elderly people, or people with serious health issues. Those payments will be made as promptly as possible. I anticipate that as the applications are assessed and the payments are made, the $90.2 million set aside by the previous government will prove not to be adequate. The government will add additional funding when that point is reached. I do not know what that quantum will be, but in an effort to be absolutely open, upfront and honest, we have simply made the point that the cap of $80 000 set by the previous government unfairly raised the expectations of many people that they would receive $80 000 or something in that vicinity. I do not in any way dismiss the horrible and cruel abuse that these people suffered as children. However, the previous government created an expectation that payments for a large number of applicants might be in the region of around $80 000. If that is what the previous government believed, it would have allocated far more than $90.2 million—probably closer to double that amount. The opposition should not come into Parliament and say that the government has cut the scheme in half. We have set a cap of $45 000 so that all applicants will receive some level of ex gratia payment. As I tried to say to the people outside, this is in no way compensation. No amount of money can make up for the abuse that they suffered as children, and this generation is simply making an ex gratia payment as a form of apology to a previous generation. I will also add the point that while these children were in the care of the state, this was an agreement that was negotiated between the British and Australian governments. They arrived here as child migrants and many of them—the majority—were placed in non-government institutions; they were placed in churches and missions. Ms M.M. Quirk : Blame the churches! Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am not shifting the blame; I am simply recording the facts. We are relying on those institutions to provide us with information and, as the minister and I said as we were talking to some of the people outside, if evidence comes forward that can identify and substantiate criminal acts, the people responsible will be prosecuted—after all those years, they will be prosecuted. A number of people made the point to me today that the money does not matter, and I can understand that after their experiences perhaps the money seems almost irrelevant. They made the point that they want counselling and that they want a sense of finality. All that this generation and Parliament can do is apologise and make some gesture, and that is what this is. The gesture is at least $90 million plus counselling, plus what it takes to provide a fair and equitable outcome, subject to a cap of $45 000. For the Labor Party to continue to suggest that people are going to get $80 000 is basically misleading. It raised expectations way beyond anything that could ever have been achieved. Had members opposite believed that people were going to get $80 000, they would have put twice the amount of funding into it. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! Member for Mandurah!
The previous government promised $90.2 million, and this government is honouring that pledge. There is $90.2 million available. Each one of the 9 700 applicants will be assessed individually. To this point, about 114 of them have received payment. They are elderly people, or people with serious health issues. Those payments will be made as promptly as possible. I anticipate that as the applications are assessed and the payments are made, the $90.2 million set aside by the previous government will prove not to be adequate. The government will add additional funding when that point is reached. I do not know what that quantum will be, but in an effort to be absolutely open, upfront and honest, we have simply made the point that the cap of $80 000 set by the previous government unfairly raised the expectations of many people that they would receive $80 000 or something in that vicinity. I do not in any way dismiss the horrible and cruel abuse that these people suffered as children. However, the previous government created an expectation that payments for a large number of applicants might be in the region of around $80 000. If that is what the previous government believed, it would have allocated far more than $90.2 million—probably closer to double that amount. The opposition should not come into Parliament and say that the government has cut the scheme in half. We have set a cap of $45 000 so that all applicants will receive some level of ex gratia payment. As I tried to say to the people outside, this is in no way compensation. No amount of money can make up for the abuse that they suffered as children, and this generation is simply making an ex gratia payment as a form of apology to a previous generation. I will also add the point that while these children were in the care of the state, this was an agreement that was negotiated between the British and Australian governments. They arrived here as child migrants and many of them—the majority—were placed in non-government institutions; they were placed in churches and missions. Ms M.M. Quirk : Blame the churches! Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am not shifting the blame; I am simply recording the facts. We are relying on those institutions to provide us with information and, as the minister and I said as we were talking to some of the people outside, if evidence comes forward that can identify and substantiate criminal acts, the people responsible will be prosecuted—after all those years, they will be prosecuted. A number of people made the point to me today that the money does not matter, and I can understand that after their experiences perhaps the money seems almost irrelevant. They made the point that they want counselling and that they want a sense of finality. All that this generation and Parliament can do is apologise and make some gesture, and that is what this is. The gesture is at least $90 million plus counselling, plus what it takes to provide a fair and equitable outcome, subject to a cap of $45 000. For the Labor Party to continue to suggest that people are going to get $80 000 is basically misleading. It raised expectations way beyond anything that could ever have been achieved. Had members opposite believed that people were going to get $80 000, they would have put twice the amount of funding into it. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! Member for Mandurah!
As I tried to say to the people outside, this is in no way compensation. No amount of money can make up for the abuse that they suffered as children, and this generation is simply making an ex gratia payment as a form of apology to a previous generation. I will also add the point that while these children were in the care of the state, this was an agreement that was negotiated between the British and Australian governments. They arrived here as child migrants and many of them—the majority—were placed in non-government institutions; they were placed in churches and missions. Ms M.M. Quirk : Blame the churches! Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am not shifting the blame; I am simply recording the facts. We are relying on those institutions to provide us with information and, as the minister and I said as we were talking to some of the people outside, if evidence comes forward that can identify and substantiate criminal acts, the people responsible will be prosecuted—after all those years, they will be prosecuted. A number of people made the point to me today that the money does not matter, and I can understand that after their experiences perhaps the money seems almost irrelevant. They made the point that they want counselling and that they want a sense of finality. All that this generation and Parliament can do is apologise and make some gesture, and that is what this is. The gesture is at least $90 million plus counselling, plus what it takes to provide a fair and equitable outcome, subject to a cap of $45 000. For the Labor Party to continue to suggest that people are going to get $80 000 is basically misleading. It raised expectations way beyond anything that could ever have been achieved. Had members opposite believed that people were going to get $80 000, they would have put twice the amount of funding into it. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! Member for Mandurah!
Ms M.M. Quirk : Blame the churches! Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am not shifting the blame; I am simply recording the facts. We are relying on those institutions to provide us with information and, as the minister and I said as we were talking to some of the people outside, if evidence comes forward that can identify and substantiate criminal acts, the people responsible will be prosecuted—after all those years, they will be prosecuted. A number of people made the point to me today that the money does not matter, and I can understand that after their experiences perhaps the money seems almost irrelevant. They made the point that they want counselling and that they want a sense of finality. All that this generation and Parliament can do is apologise and make some gesture, and that is what this is. The gesture is at least $90 million plus counselling, plus what it takes to provide a fair and equitable outcome, subject to a cap of $45 000. For the Labor Party to continue to suggest that people are going to get $80 000 is basically misleading. It raised expectations way beyond anything that could ever have been achieved. Had members opposite believed that people were going to get $80 000, they would have put twice the amount of funding into it. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! Member for Mandurah!
Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am not shifting the blame; I am simply recording the facts. We are relying on those institutions to provide us with information and, as the minister and I said as we were talking to some of the people outside, if evidence comes forward that can identify and substantiate criminal acts, the people responsible will be prosecuted—after all those years, they will be prosecuted. A number of people made the point to me today that the money does not matter, and I can understand that after their experiences perhaps the money seems almost irrelevant. They made the point that they want counselling and that they want a sense of finality. All that this generation and Parliament can do is apologise and make some gesture, and that is what this is. The gesture is at least $90 million plus counselling, plus what it takes to provide a fair and equitable outcome, subject to a cap of $45 000. For the Labor Party to continue to suggest that people are going to get $80 000 is basically misleading. It raised expectations way beyond anything that could ever have been achieved. Had members opposite believed that people were going to get $80 000, they would have put twice the amount of funding into it. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! Member for Mandurah!
We are relying on those institutions to provide us with information and, as the minister and I said as we were talking to some of the people outside, if evidence comes forward that can identify and substantiate criminal acts, the people responsible will be prosecuted—after all those years, they will be prosecuted. A number of people made the point to me today that the money does not matter, and I can understand that after their experiences perhaps the money seems almost irrelevant. They made the point that they want counselling and that they want a sense of finality. All that this generation and Parliament can do is apologise and make some gesture, and that is what this is. The gesture is at least $90 million plus counselling, plus what it takes to provide a fair and equitable outcome, subject to a cap of $45 000. For the Labor Party to continue to suggest that people are going to get $80 000 is basically misleading. It raised expectations way beyond anything that could ever have been achieved. Had members opposite believed that people were going to get $80 000, they would have put twice the amount of funding into it. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! Member for Mandurah!
A number of people made the point to me today that the money does not matter, and I can understand that after their experiences perhaps the money seems almost irrelevant. They made the point that they want counselling and that they want a sense of finality. All that this generation and Parliament can do is apologise and make some gesture, and that is what this is. The gesture is at least $90 million plus counselling, plus what it takes to provide a fair and equitable outcome, subject to a cap of $45 000. For the Labor Party to continue to suggest that people are going to get $80 000 is basically misleading. It raised expectations way beyond anything that could ever have been achieved. Had members opposite believed that people were going to get $80 000, they would have put twice the amount of funding into it. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! Member for Mandurah!
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! Member for Mandurah!
The SPEAKER : Order! Member for Mandurah!
I refer to the Premier’s government’s decision to cut by almost half the maximum amount payable through Redress WA to some of our most vulnerable community members who have suffered abuse in state and non-government institutions. (1) Does the Premier support the view of Michelle Stubbs, a member of the government’s Ministerial Advisory Council on Child Protection, that these people should be entitled to claim up to $80 000, as they were originally promised? (2) Will the Premier now reverse this heartless decision? (3) Will the Premier allow these people to receive what they were promised in return for not suing the state, so they can deal with the past and hopefully move forward with their lives? Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: (1)-(3) I think the final comment of the Leader of the Opposition is pertinent: they will not receive what they were promised. Is the Leader of the Opposition suggesting that the previous Labor government promised these people $80 000? Mr E.S. Ripper : It was a maximum payment of $80 000. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Having talked to a large number of people outside, and chatted with them for about half an hour, I am sure that no amount of money can make up for the abuse and the harm that they suffered as children. This Parliament during the time of the Court government, on a motion moved by the then former Labor opposition, formally passed a motion of apology for the neglect and abuse, including sexual, mental and physical abuse, of many children who had been in the care of the state. There were some 54 000 children in the care of the state between 1947 and 2006. Of those, it is thought that perhaps 10 000—an extraordinarily large number—suffered some form of harm or damage. Following the motion of apology moved in this house, the Redress WA scheme was developed and announced publicly by the previous government in late 2007. Under that scheme, the previous government allocated $90.2 million as a fund for ex gratia payments, and additional money was made available for administration and for the provision of counselling where it was required, which came to a total sum of $114 million. When that was announced, it was also announced that a cap of $80 000 would be set; in other words, no payment to any individual would exceed that amount. If we do the sums—the basic arithmetic of $90 million divided by 9 700 applicants—we can see that the result would be on average no more than about $10 000 for each applicant. There will be all sorts of different circumstances. The previous government promised $90.2 million, and this government is honouring that pledge. There is $90.2 million available. Each one of the 9 700 applicants will be assessed individually. To this point, about 114 of them have received payment. They are elderly people, or people with serious health issues. Those payments will be made as promptly as possible. I anticipate that as the applications are assessed and the payments are made, the $90.2 million set aside by the previous government will prove not to be adequate. The government will add additional funding when that point is reached. I do not know what that quantum will be, but in an effort to be absolutely open, upfront and honest, we have simply made the point that the cap of $80 000 set by the previous government unfairly raised the expectations of many people that they would receive $80 000 or something in that vicinity. I do not in any way dismiss the horrible and cruel abuse that these people suffered as children. However, the previous government created an expectation that payments for a large number of applicants might be in the region of around $80 000. If that is what the previous government believed, it would have allocated far more than $90.2 million—probably closer to double that amount. The opposition should not come into Parliament and say that the government has cut the scheme in half. We have set a cap of $45 000 so that all applicants will receive some level of ex gratia payment. As I tried to say to the people outside, this is in no way compensation. No amount of money can make up for the abuse that they suffered as children, and this generation is simply making an ex gratia payment as a form of apology to a previous generation. I will also add the point that while these children were in the care of the state, this was an agreement that was negotiated between the British and Australian governments. They arrived here as child migrants and many of them—the majority—were placed in non-government institutions; they were placed in churches and missions. Ms M.M. Quirk : Blame the churches! Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am not shifting the blame; I am simply recording the facts. We are relying on those institutions to provide us with information and, as the minister and I said as we were talking to some of the people outside, if evidence comes forward that can identify and substantiate criminal acts, the people responsible will be prosecuted—after all those years, they will be prosecuted. A number of people made the point to me today that the money does not matter, and I can understand that after their experiences perhaps the money seems almost irrelevant. They made the point that they want counselling and that they want a sense of finality. All that this generation and Parliament can do is apologise and make some gesture, and that is what this is. The gesture is at least $90 million plus counselling, plus what it takes to provide a fair and equitable outcome, subject to a cap of $45 000. For the Labor Party to continue to suggest that people are going to get $80 000 is basically misleading. It raised expectations way beyond anything that could ever have been achieved. Had members opposite believed that people were going to get $80 000, they would have put twice the amount of funding into it. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! Member for Mandurah!
(1) Does the Premier support the view of Michelle Stubbs, a member of the government’s Ministerial Advisory Council on Child Protection, that these people should be entitled to claim up to $80 000, as they were originally promised? (2) Will the Premier now reverse this heartless decision? (3) Will the Premier allow these people to receive what they were promised in return for not suing the state, so they can deal with the past and hopefully move forward with their lives? Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: (1)-(3) I think the final comment of the Leader of the Opposition is pertinent: they will not receive what they were promised. Is the Leader of the Opposition suggesting that the previous Labor government promised these people $80 000? Mr E.S. Ripper : It was a maximum payment of $80 000. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Having talked to a large number of people outside, and chatted with them for about half an hour, I am sure that no amount of money can make up for the abuse and the harm that they suffered as children. This Parliament during the time of the Court government, on a motion moved by the then former Labor opposition, formally passed a motion of apology for the neglect and abuse, including sexual, mental and physical abuse, of many children who had been in the care of the state. There were some 54 000 children in the care of the state between 1947 and 2006. Of those, it is thought that perhaps 10 000—an extraordinarily large number—suffered some form of harm or damage. Following the motion of apology moved in this house, the Redress WA scheme was developed and announced publicly by the previous government in late 2007. Under that scheme, the previous government allocated $90.2 million as a fund for ex gratia payments, and additional money was made available for administration and for the provision of counselling where it was required, which came to a total sum of $114 million. When that was announced, it was also announced that a cap of $80 000 would be set; in other words, no payment to any individual would exceed that amount. If we do the sums—the basic arithmetic of $90 million divided by 9 700 applicants—we can see that the result would be on average no more than about $10 000 for each applicant. There will be all sorts of different circumstances. The previous government promised $90.2 million, and this government is honouring that pledge. There is $90.2 million available. Each one of the 9 700 applicants will be assessed individually. To this point, about 114 of them have received payment. They are elderly people, or people with serious health issues. Those payments will be made as promptly as possible. I anticipate that as the applications are assessed and the payments are made, the $90.2 million set aside by the previous government will prove not to be adequate. The government will add additional funding when that point is reached. I do not know what that quantum will be, but in an effort to be absolutely open, upfront and honest, we have simply made the point that the cap of $80 000 set by the previous government unfairly raised the expectations of many people that they would receive $80 000 or something in that vicinity. I do not in any way dismiss the horrible and cruel abuse that these people suffered as children. However, the previous government created an expectation that payments for a large number of applicants might be in the region of around $80 000. If that is what the previous government believed, it would have allocated far more than $90.2 million—probably closer to double that amount. The opposition should not come into Parliament and say that the government has cut the scheme in half. We have set a cap of $45 000 so that all applicants will receive some level of ex gratia payment. As I tried to say to the people outside, this is in no way compensation. No amount of money can make up for the abuse that they suffered as children, and this generation is simply making an ex gratia payment as a form of apology to a previous generation. I will also add the point that while these children were in the care of the state, this was an agreement that was negotiated between the British and Australian governments. They arrived here as child migrants and many of them—the majority—were placed in non-government institutions; they were placed in churches and missions. Ms M.M. Quirk : Blame the churches! Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am not shifting the blame; I am simply recording the facts. We are relying on those institutions to provide us with information and, as the minister and I said as we were talking to some of the people outside, if evidence comes forward that can identify and substantiate criminal acts, the people responsible will be prosecuted—after all those years, they will be prosecuted. A number of people made the point to me today that the money does not matter, and I can understand that after their experiences perhaps the money seems almost irrelevant. They made the point that they want counselling and that they want a sense of finality. All that this generation and Parliament can do is apologise and make some gesture, and that is what this is. The gesture is at least $90 million plus counselling, plus what it takes to provide a fair and equitable outcome, subject to a cap of $45 000. For the Labor Party to continue to suggest that people are going to get $80 000 is basically misleading. It raised expectations way beyond anything that could ever have been achieved. Had members opposite believed that people were going to get $80 000, they would have put twice the amount of funding into it. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! Member for Mandurah!
(2) Will the Premier now reverse this heartless decision? (3) Will the Premier allow these people to receive what they were promised in return for not suing the state, so they can deal with the past and hopefully move forward with their lives? Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: (1)-(3) I think the final comment of the Leader of the Opposition is pertinent: they will not receive what they were promised. Is the Leader of the Opposition suggesting that the previous Labor government promised these people $80 000? Mr E.S. Ripper : It was a maximum payment of $80 000. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Having talked to a large number of people outside, and chatted with them for about half an hour, I am sure that no amount of money can make up for the abuse and the harm that they suffered as children. This Parliament during the time of the Court government, on a motion moved by the then former Labor opposition, formally passed a motion of apology for the neglect and abuse, including sexual, mental and physical abuse, of many children who had been in the care of the state. There were some 54 000 children in the care of the state between 1947 and 2006. Of those, it is thought that perhaps 10 000—an extraordinarily large number—suffered some form of harm or damage. Following the motion of apology moved in this house, the Redress WA scheme was developed and announced publicly by the previous government in late 2007. Under that scheme, the previous government allocated $90.2 million as a fund for ex gratia payments, and additional money was made available for administration and for the provision of counselling where it was required, which came to a total sum of $114 million. When that was announced, it was also announced that a cap of $80 000 would be set; in other words, no payment to any individual would exceed that amount. If we do the sums—the basic arithmetic of $90 million divided by 9 700 applicants—we can see that the result would be on average no more than about $10 000 for each applicant. There will be all sorts of different circumstances. The previous government promised $90.2 million, and this government is honouring that pledge. There is $90.2 million available. Each one of the 9 700 applicants will be assessed individually. To this point, about 114 of them have received payment. They are elderly people, or people with serious health issues. Those payments will be made as promptly as possible. I anticipate that as the applications are assessed and the payments are made, the $90.2 million set aside by the previous government will prove not to be adequate. The government will add additional funding when that point is reached. I do not know what that quantum will be, but in an effort to be absolutely open, upfront and honest, we have simply made the point that the cap of $80 000 set by the previous government unfairly raised the expectations of many people that they would receive $80 000 or something in that vicinity. I do not in any way dismiss the horrible and cruel abuse that these people suffered as children. However, the previous government created an expectation that payments for a large number of applicants might be in the region of around $80 000. If that is what the previous government believed, it would have allocated far more than $90.2 million—probably closer to double that amount. The opposition should not come into Parliament and say that the government has cut the scheme in half. We have set a cap of $45 000 so that all applicants will receive some level of ex gratia payment. As I tried to say to the people outside, this is in no way compensation. No amount of money can make up for the abuse that they suffered as children, and this generation is simply making an ex gratia payment as a form of apology to a previous generation. I will also add the point that while these children were in the care of the state, this was an agreement that was negotiated between the British and Australian governments. They arrived here as child migrants and many of them—the majority—were placed in non-government institutions; they were placed in churches and missions. Ms M.M. Quirk : Blame the churches! Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am not shifting the blame; I am simply recording the facts. We are relying on those institutions to provide us with information and, as the minister and I said as we were talking to some of the people outside, if evidence comes forward that can identify and substantiate criminal acts, the people responsible will be prosecuted—after all those years, they will be prosecuted. A number of people made the point to me today that the money does not matter, and I can understand that after their experiences perhaps the money seems almost irrelevant. They made the point that they want counselling and that they want a sense of finality. All that this generation and Parliament can do is apologise and make some gesture, and that is what this is. The gesture is at least $90 million plus counselling, plus what it takes to provide a fair and equitable outcome, subject to a cap of $45 000. For the Labor Party to continue to suggest that people are going to get $80 000 is basically misleading. It raised expectations way beyond anything that could ever have been achieved. Had members opposite believed that people were going to get $80 000, they would have put twice the amount of funding into it. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! Member for Mandurah!
(3) Will the Premier allow these people to receive what they were promised in return for not suing the state, so they can deal with the past and hopefully move forward with their lives? Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: (1)-(3) I think the final comment of the Leader of the Opposition is pertinent: they will not receive what they were promised. Is the Leader of the Opposition suggesting that the previous Labor government promised these people $80 000? Mr E.S. Ripper : It was a maximum payment of $80 000. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Having talked to a large number of people outside, and chatted with them for about half an hour, I am sure that no amount of money can make up for the abuse and the harm that they suffered as children. This Parliament during the time of the Court government, on a motion moved by the then former Labor opposition, formally passed a motion of apology for the neglect and abuse, including sexual, mental and physical abuse, of many children who had been in the care of the state. There were some 54 000 children in the care of the state between 1947 and 2006. Of those, it is thought that perhaps 10 000—an extraordinarily large number—suffered some form of harm or damage. Following the motion of apology moved in this house, the Redress WA scheme was developed and announced publicly by the previous government in late 2007. Under that scheme, the previous government allocated $90.2 million as a fund for ex gratia payments, and additional money was made available for administration and for the provision of counselling where it was required, which came to a total sum of $114 million. When that was announced, it was also announced that a cap of $80 000 would be set; in other words, no payment to any individual would exceed that amount. If we do the sums—the basic arithmetic of $90 million divided by 9 700 applicants—we can see that the result would be on average no more than about $10 000 for each applicant. There will be all sorts of different circumstances. The previous government promised $90.2 million, and this government is honouring that pledge. There is $90.2 million available. Each one of the 9 700 applicants will be assessed individually. To this point, about 114 of them have received payment. They are elderly people, or people with serious health issues. Those payments will be made as promptly as possible. I anticipate that as the applications are assessed and the payments are made, the $90.2 million set aside by the previous government will prove not to be adequate. The government will add additional funding when that point is reached. I do not know what that quantum will be, but in an effort to be absolutely open, upfront and honest, we have simply made the point that the cap of $80 000 set by the previous government unfairly raised the expectations of many people that they would receive $80 000 or something in that vicinity. I do not in any way dismiss the horrible and cruel abuse that these people suffered as children. However, the previous government created an expectation that payments for a large number of applicants might be in the region of around $80 000. If that is what the previous government believed, it would have allocated far more than $90.2 million—probably closer to double that amount. The opposition should not come into Parliament and say that the government has cut the scheme in half. We have set a cap of $45 000 so that all applicants will receive some level of ex gratia payment. As I tried to say to the people outside, this is in no way compensation. No amount of money can make up for the abuse that they suffered as children, and this generation is simply making an ex gratia payment as a form of apology to a previous generation. I will also add the point that while these children were in the care of the state, this was an agreement that was negotiated between the British and Australian governments. They arrived here as child migrants and many of them—the majority—were placed in non-government institutions; they were placed in churches and missions. Ms M.M. Quirk : Blame the churches! Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am not shifting the blame; I am simply recording the facts. We are relying on those institutions to provide us with information and, as the minister and I said as we were talking to some of the people outside, if evidence comes forward that can identify and substantiate criminal acts, the people responsible will be prosecuted—after all those years, they will be prosecuted. A number of people made the point to me today that the money does not matter, and I can understand that after their experiences perhaps the money seems almost irrelevant. They made the point that they want counselling and that they want a sense of finality. All that this generation and Parliament can do is apologise and make some gesture, and that is what this is. The gesture is at least $90 million plus counselling, plus what it takes to provide a fair and equitable outcome, subject to a cap of $45 000. For the Labor Party to continue to suggest that people are going to get $80 000 is basically misleading. It raised expectations way beyond anything that could ever have been achieved. Had members opposite believed that people were going to get $80 000, they would have put twice the amount of funding into it. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! Member for Mandurah!
Mr C.J. BARNETT replied: (1)-(3) I think the final comment of the Leader of the Opposition is pertinent: they will not receive what they were promised. Is the Leader of the Opposition suggesting that the previous Labor government promised these people $80 000? Mr E.S. Ripper : It was a maximum payment of $80 000. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Having talked to a large number of people outside, and chatted with them for about half an hour, I am sure that no amount of money can make up for the abuse and the harm that they suffered as children. This Parliament during the time of the Court government, on a motion moved by the then former Labor opposition, formally passed a motion of apology for the neglect and abuse, including sexual, mental and physical abuse, of many children who had been in the care of the state. There were some 54 000 children in the care of the state between 1947 and 2006. Of those, it is thought that perhaps 10 000—an extraordinarily large number—suffered some form of harm or damage. Following the motion of apology moved in this house, the Redress WA scheme was developed and announced publicly by the previous government in late 2007. Under that scheme, the previous government allocated $90.2 million as a fund for ex gratia payments, and additional money was made available for administration and for the provision of counselling where it was required, which came to a total sum of $114 million. When that was announced, it was also announced that a cap of $80 000 would be set; in other words, no payment to any individual would exceed that amount. If we do the sums—the basic arithmetic of $90 million divided by 9 700 applicants—we can see that the result would be on average no more than about $10 000 for each applicant. There will be all sorts of different circumstances. The previous government promised $90.2 million, and this government is honouring that pledge. There is $90.2 million available. Each one of the 9 700 applicants will be assessed individually. To this point, about 114 of them have received payment. They are elderly people, or people with serious health issues. Those payments will be made as promptly as possible. I anticipate that as the applications are assessed and the payments are made, the $90.2 million set aside by the previous government will prove not to be adequate. The government will add additional funding when that point is reached. I do not know what that quantum will be, but in an effort to be absolutely open, upfront and honest, we have simply made the point that the cap of $80 000 set by the previous government unfairly raised the expectations of many people that they would receive $80 000 or something in that vicinity. I do not in any way dismiss the horrible and cruel abuse that these people suffered as children. However, the previous government created an expectation that payments for a large number of applicants might be in the region of around $80 000. If that is what the previous government believed, it would have allocated far more than $90.2 million—probably closer to double that amount. The opposition should not come into Parliament and say that the government has cut the scheme in half. We have set a cap of $45 000 so that all applicants will receive some level of ex gratia payment. As I tried to say to the people outside, this is in no way compensation. No amount of money can make up for the abuse that they suffered as children, and this generation is simply making an ex gratia payment as a form of apology to a previous generation. I will also add the point that while these children were in the care of the state, this was an agreement that was negotiated between the British and Australian governments. They arrived here as child migrants and many of them—the majority—were placed in non-government institutions; they were placed in churches and missions. Ms M.M. Quirk : Blame the churches! Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am not shifting the blame; I am simply recording the facts. We are relying on those institutions to provide us with information and, as the minister and I said as we were talking to some of the people outside, if evidence comes forward that can identify and substantiate criminal acts, the people responsible will be prosecuted—after all those years, they will be prosecuted. A number of people made the point to me today that the money does not matter, and I can understand that after their experiences perhaps the money seems almost irrelevant. They made the point that they want counselling and that they want a sense of finality. All that this generation and Parliament can do is apologise and make some gesture, and that is what this is. The gesture is at least $90 million plus counselling, plus what it takes to provide a fair and equitable outcome, subject to a cap of $45 000. For the Labor Party to continue to suggest that people are going to get $80 000 is basically misleading. It raised expectations way beyond anything that could ever have been achieved. Had members opposite believed that people were going to get $80 000, they would have put twice the amount of funding into it. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! Member for Mandurah!
(1)-(3) I think the final comment of the Leader of the Opposition is pertinent: they will not receive what they were promised. Is the Leader of the Opposition suggesting that the previous Labor government promised these people $80 000? Mr E.S. Ripper : It was a maximum payment of $80 000. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Having talked to a large number of people outside, and chatted with them for about half an hour, I am sure that no amount of money can make up for the abuse and the harm that they suffered as children. This Parliament during the time of the Court government, on a motion moved by the then former Labor opposition, formally passed a motion of apology for the neglect and abuse, including sexual, mental and physical abuse, of many children who had been in the care of the state. There were some 54 000 children in the care of the state between 1947 and 2006. Of those, it is thought that perhaps 10 000—an extraordinarily large number—suffered some form of harm or damage. Following the motion of apology moved in this house, the Redress WA scheme was developed and announced publicly by the previous government in late 2007. Under that scheme, the previous government allocated $90.2 million as a fund for ex gratia payments, and additional money was made available for administration and for the provision of counselling where it was required, which came to a total sum of $114 million. When that was announced, it was also announced that a cap of $80 000 would be set; in other words, no payment to any individual would exceed that amount. If we do the sums—the basic arithmetic of $90 million divided by 9 700 applicants—we can see that the result would be on average no more than about $10 000 for each applicant. There will be all sorts of different circumstances. The previous government promised $90.2 million, and this government is honouring that pledge. There is $90.2 million available. Each one of the 9 700 applicants will be assessed individually. To this point, about 114 of them have received payment. They are elderly people, or people with serious health issues. Those payments will be made as promptly as possible. I anticipate that as the applications are assessed and the payments are made, the $90.2 million set aside by the previous government will prove not to be adequate. The government will add additional funding when that point is reached. I do not know what that quantum will be, but in an effort to be absolutely open, upfront and honest, we have simply made the point that the cap of $80 000 set by the previous government unfairly raised the expectations of many people that they would receive $80 000 or something in that vicinity. I do not in any way dismiss the horrible and cruel abuse that these people suffered as children. However, the previous government created an expectation that payments for a large number of applicants might be in the region of around $80 000. If that is what the previous government believed, it would have allocated far more than $90.2 million—probably closer to double that amount. The opposition should not come into Parliament and say that the government has cut the scheme in half. We have set a cap of $45 000 so that all applicants will receive some level of ex gratia payment. As I tried to say to the people outside, this is in no way compensation. No amount of money can make up for the abuse that they suffered as children, and this generation is simply making an ex gratia payment as a form of apology to a previous generation. I will also add the point that while these children were in the care of the state, this was an agreement that was negotiated between the British and Australian governments. They arrived here as child migrants and many of them—the majority—were placed in non-government institutions; they were placed in churches and missions. Ms M.M. Quirk : Blame the churches! Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am not shifting the blame; I am simply recording the facts. We are relying on those institutions to provide us with information and, as the minister and I said as we were talking to some of the people outside, if evidence comes forward that can identify and substantiate criminal acts, the people responsible will be prosecuted—after all those years, they will be prosecuted. A number of people made the point to me today that the money does not matter, and I can understand that after their experiences perhaps the money seems almost irrelevant. They made the point that they want counselling and that they want a sense of finality. All that this generation and Parliament can do is apologise and make some gesture, and that is what this is. The gesture is at least $90 million plus counselling, plus what it takes to provide a fair and equitable outcome, subject to a cap of $45 000. For the Labor Party to continue to suggest that people are going to get $80 000 is basically misleading. It raised expectations way beyond anything that could ever have been achieved. Had members opposite believed that people were going to get $80 000, they would have put twice the amount of funding into it. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! Member for Mandurah!
Mr E.S. Ripper : It was a maximum payment of $80 000. Mr C.J. BARNETT : Having talked to a large number of people outside, and chatted with them for about half an hour, I am sure that no amount of money can make up for the abuse and the harm that they suffered as children. This Parliament during the time of the Court government, on a motion moved by the then former Labor opposition, formally passed a motion of apology for the neglect and abuse, including sexual, mental and physical abuse, of many children who had been in the care of the state. There were some 54 000 children in the care of the state between 1947 and 2006. Of those, it is thought that perhaps 10 000—an extraordinarily large number—suffered some form of harm or damage. Following the motion of apology moved in this house, the Redress WA scheme was developed and announced publicly by the previous government in late 2007. Under that scheme, the previous government allocated $90.2 million as a fund for ex gratia payments, and additional money was made available for administration and for the provision of counselling where it was required, which came to a total sum of $114 million. When that was announced, it was also announced that a cap of $80 000 would be set; in other words, no payment to any individual would exceed that amount. If we do the sums—the basic arithmetic of $90 million divided by 9 700 applicants—we can see that the result would be on average no more than about $10 000 for each applicant. There will be all sorts of different circumstances. The previous government promised $90.2 million, and this government is honouring that pledge. There is $90.2 million available. Each one of the 9 700 applicants will be assessed individually. To this point, about 114 of them have received payment. They are elderly people, or people with serious health issues. Those payments will be made as promptly as possible. I anticipate that as the applications are assessed and the payments are made, the $90.2 million set aside by the previous government will prove not to be adequate. The government will add additional funding when that point is reached. I do not know what that quantum will be, but in an effort to be absolutely open, upfront and honest, we have simply made the point that the cap of $80 000 set by the previous government unfairly raised the expectations of many people that they would receive $80 000 or something in that vicinity. I do not in any way dismiss the horrible and cruel abuse that these people suffered as children. However, the previous government created an expectation that payments for a large number of applicants might be in the region of around $80 000. If that is what the previous government believed, it would have allocated far more than $90.2 million—probably closer to double that amount. The opposition should not come into Parliament and say that the government has cut the scheme in half. We have set a cap of $45 000 so that all applicants will receive some level of ex gratia payment. As I tried to say to the people outside, this is in no way compensation. No amount of money can make up for the abuse that they suffered as children, and this generation is simply making an ex gratia payment as a form of apology to a previous generation. I will also add the point that while these children were in the care of the state, this was an agreement that was negotiated between the British and Australian governments. They arrived here as child migrants and many of them—the majority—were placed in non-government institutions; they were placed in churches and missions. Ms M.M. Quirk : Blame the churches! Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am not shifting the blame; I am simply recording the facts. We are relying on those institutions to provide us with information and, as the minister and I said as we were talking to some of the people outside, if evidence comes forward that can identify and substantiate criminal acts, the people responsible will be prosecuted—after all those years, they will be prosecuted. A number of people made the point to me today that the money does not matter, and I can understand that after their experiences perhaps the money seems almost irrelevant. They made the point that they want counselling and that they want a sense of finality. All that this generation and Parliament can do is apologise and make some gesture, and that is what this is. The gesture is at least $90 million plus counselling, plus what it takes to provide a fair and equitable outcome, subject to a cap of $45 000. For the Labor Party to continue to suggest that people are going to get $80 000 is basically misleading. It raised expectations way beyond anything that could ever have been achieved. Had members opposite believed that people were going to get $80 000, they would have put twice the amount of funding into it. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! Member for Mandurah!
Mr C.J. BARNETT : Having talked to a large number of people outside, and chatted with them for about half an hour, I am sure that no amount of money can make up for the abuse and the harm that they suffered as children. This Parliament during the time of the Court government, on a motion moved by the then former Labor opposition, formally passed a motion of apology for the neglect and abuse, including sexual, mental and physical abuse, of many children who had been in the care of the state. There were some 54 000 children in the care of the state between 1947 and 2006. Of those, it is thought that perhaps 10 000—an extraordinarily large number—suffered some form of harm or damage. Following the motion of apology moved in this house, the Redress WA scheme was developed and announced publicly by the previous government in late 2007. Under that scheme, the previous government allocated $90.2 million as a fund for ex gratia payments, and additional money was made available for administration and for the provision of counselling where it was required, which came to a total sum of $114 million. When that was announced, it was also announced that a cap of $80 000 would be set; in other words, no payment to any individual would exceed that amount. If we do the sums—the basic arithmetic of $90 million divided by 9 700 applicants—we can see that the result would be on average no more than about $10 000 for each applicant. There will be all sorts of different circumstances. The previous government promised $90.2 million, and this government is honouring that pledge. There is $90.2 million available. Each one of the 9 700 applicants will be assessed individually. To this point, about 114 of them have received payment. They are elderly people, or people with serious health issues. Those payments will be made as promptly as possible. I anticipate that as the applications are assessed and the payments are made, the $90.2 million set aside by the previous government will prove not to be adequate. The government will add additional funding when that point is reached. I do not know what that quantum will be, but in an effort to be absolutely open, upfront and honest, we have simply made the point that the cap of $80 000 set by the previous government unfairly raised the expectations of many people that they would receive $80 000 or something in that vicinity. I do not in any way dismiss the horrible and cruel abuse that these people suffered as children. However, the previous government created an expectation that payments for a large number of applicants might be in the region of around $80 000. If that is what the previous government believed, it would have allocated far more than $90.2 million—probably closer to double that amount. The opposition should not come into Parliament and say that the government has cut the scheme in half. We have set a cap of $45 000 so that all applicants will receive some level of ex gratia payment. As I tried to say to the people outside, this is in no way compensation. No amount of money can make up for the abuse that they suffered as children, and this generation is simply making an ex gratia payment as a form of apology to a previous generation. I will also add the point that while these children were in the care of the state, this was an agreement that was negotiated between the British and Australian governments. They arrived here as child migrants and many of them—the majority—were placed in non-government institutions; they were placed in churches and missions. Ms M.M. Quirk : Blame the churches! Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am not shifting the blame; I am simply recording the facts. We are relying on those institutions to provide us with information and, as the minister and I said as we were talking to some of the people outside, if evidence comes forward that can identify and substantiate criminal acts, the people responsible will be prosecuted—after all those years, they will be prosecuted. A number of people made the point to me today that the money does not matter, and I can understand that after their experiences perhaps the money seems almost irrelevant. They made the point that they want counselling and that they want a sense of finality. All that this generation and Parliament can do is apologise and make some gesture, and that is what this is. The gesture is at least $90 million plus counselling, plus what it takes to provide a fair and equitable outcome, subject to a cap of $45 000. For the Labor Party to continue to suggest that people are going to get $80 000 is basically misleading. It raised expectations way beyond anything that could ever have been achieved. Had members opposite believed that people were going to get $80 000, they would have put twice the amount of funding into it. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! Member for Mandurah!
The previous government promised $90.2 million, and this government is honouring that pledge. There is $90.2 million available. Each one of the 9 700 applicants will be assessed individually. To this point, about 114 of them have received payment. They are elderly people, or people with serious health issues. Those payments will be made as promptly as possible. I anticipate that as the applications are assessed and the payments are made, the $90.2 million set aside by the previous government will prove not to be adequate. The government will add additional funding when that point is reached. I do not know what that quantum will be, but in an effort to be absolutely open, upfront and honest, we have simply made the point that the cap of $80 000 set by the previous government unfairly raised the expectations of many people that they would receive $80 000 or something in that vicinity. I do not in any way dismiss the horrible and cruel abuse that these people suffered as children. However, the previous government created an expectation that payments for a large number of applicants might be in the region of around $80 000. If that is what the previous government believed, it would have allocated far more than $90.2 million—probably closer to double that amount. The opposition should not come into Parliament and say that the government has cut the scheme in half. We have set a cap of $45 000 so that all applicants will receive some level of ex gratia payment. As I tried to say to the people outside, this is in no way compensation. No amount of money can make up for the abuse that they suffered as children, and this generation is simply making an ex gratia payment as a form of apology to a previous generation. I will also add the point that while these children were in the care of the state, this was an agreement that was negotiated between the British and Australian governments. They arrived here as child migrants and many of them—the majority—were placed in non-government institutions; they were placed in churches and missions. Ms M.M. Quirk : Blame the churches! Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am not shifting the blame; I am simply recording the facts. We are relying on those institutions to provide us with information and, as the minister and I said as we were talking to some of the people outside, if evidence comes forward that can identify and substantiate criminal acts, the people responsible will be prosecuted—after all those years, they will be prosecuted. A number of people made the point to me today that the money does not matter, and I can understand that after their experiences perhaps the money seems almost irrelevant. They made the point that they want counselling and that they want a sense of finality. All that this generation and Parliament can do is apologise and make some gesture, and that is what this is. The gesture is at least $90 million plus counselling, plus what it takes to provide a fair and equitable outcome, subject to a cap of $45 000. For the Labor Party to continue to suggest that people are going to get $80 000 is basically misleading. It raised expectations way beyond anything that could ever have been achieved. Had members opposite believed that people were going to get $80 000, they would have put twice the amount of funding into it. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! Member for Mandurah!
As I tried to say to the people outside, this is in no way compensation. No amount of money can make up for the abuse that they suffered as children, and this generation is simply making an ex gratia payment as a form of apology to a previous generation. I will also add the point that while these children were in the care of the state, this was an agreement that was negotiated between the British and Australian governments. They arrived here as child migrants and many of them—the majority—were placed in non-government institutions; they were placed in churches and missions. Ms M.M. Quirk : Blame the churches! Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am not shifting the blame; I am simply recording the facts. We are relying on those institutions to provide us with information and, as the minister and I said as we were talking to some of the people outside, if evidence comes forward that can identify and substantiate criminal acts, the people responsible will be prosecuted—after all those years, they will be prosecuted. A number of people made the point to me today that the money does not matter, and I can understand that after their experiences perhaps the money seems almost irrelevant. They made the point that they want counselling and that they want a sense of finality. All that this generation and Parliament can do is apologise and make some gesture, and that is what this is. The gesture is at least $90 million plus counselling, plus what it takes to provide a fair and equitable outcome, subject to a cap of $45 000. For the Labor Party to continue to suggest that people are going to get $80 000 is basically misleading. It raised expectations way beyond anything that could ever have been achieved. Had members opposite believed that people were going to get $80 000, they would have put twice the amount of funding into it. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! Member for Mandurah!
Ms M.M. Quirk : Blame the churches! Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am not shifting the blame; I am simply recording the facts. We are relying on those institutions to provide us with information and, as the minister and I said as we were talking to some of the people outside, if evidence comes forward that can identify and substantiate criminal acts, the people responsible will be prosecuted—after all those years, they will be prosecuted. A number of people made the point to me today that the money does not matter, and I can understand that after their experiences perhaps the money seems almost irrelevant. They made the point that they want counselling and that they want a sense of finality. All that this generation and Parliament can do is apologise and make some gesture, and that is what this is. The gesture is at least $90 million plus counselling, plus what it takes to provide a fair and equitable outcome, subject to a cap of $45 000. For the Labor Party to continue to suggest that people are going to get $80 000 is basically misleading. It raised expectations way beyond anything that could ever have been achieved. Had members opposite believed that people were going to get $80 000, they would have put twice the amount of funding into it. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! Member for Mandurah!
Mr C.J. BARNETT : I am not shifting the blame; I am simply recording the facts. We are relying on those institutions to provide us with information and, as the minister and I said as we were talking to some of the people outside, if evidence comes forward that can identify and substantiate criminal acts, the people responsible will be prosecuted—after all those years, they will be prosecuted. A number of people made the point to me today that the money does not matter, and I can understand that after their experiences perhaps the money seems almost irrelevant. They made the point that they want counselling and that they want a sense of finality. All that this generation and Parliament can do is apologise and make some gesture, and that is what this is. The gesture is at least $90 million plus counselling, plus what it takes to provide a fair and equitable outcome, subject to a cap of $45 000. For the Labor Party to continue to suggest that people are going to get $80 000 is basically misleading. It raised expectations way beyond anything that could ever have been achieved. Had members opposite believed that people were going to get $80 000, they would have put twice the amount of funding into it. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! Member for Mandurah!
We are relying on those institutions to provide us with information and, as the minister and I said as we were talking to some of the people outside, if evidence comes forward that can identify and substantiate criminal acts, the people responsible will be prosecuted—after all those years, they will be prosecuted. A number of people made the point to me today that the money does not matter, and I can understand that after their experiences perhaps the money seems almost irrelevant. They made the point that they want counselling and that they want a sense of finality. All that this generation and Parliament can do is apologise and make some gesture, and that is what this is. The gesture is at least $90 million plus counselling, plus what it takes to provide a fair and equitable outcome, subject to a cap of $45 000. For the Labor Party to continue to suggest that people are going to get $80 000 is basically misleading. It raised expectations way beyond anything that could ever have been achieved. Had members opposite believed that people were going to get $80 000, they would have put twice the amount of funding into it. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! Member for Mandurah!
A number of people made the point to me today that the money does not matter, and I can understand that after their experiences perhaps the money seems almost irrelevant. They made the point that they want counselling and that they want a sense of finality. All that this generation and Parliament can do is apologise and make some gesture, and that is what this is. The gesture is at least $90 million plus counselling, plus what it takes to provide a fair and equitable outcome, subject to a cap of $45 000. For the Labor Party to continue to suggest that people are going to get $80 000 is basically misleading. It raised expectations way beyond anything that could ever have been achieved. Had members opposite believed that people were going to get $80 000, they would have put twice the amount of funding into it. Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! Member for Mandurah!
Several members interjected. The SPEAKER : Order! Member for Mandurah!
The SPEAKER : Order! Member for Mandurah!
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.