Lynn Ruane (Independent)

So, given the fact that the waiver is implied, it is part of this scheme and should form part of the discussion. It has been raised time and again as an issue for people in terms of what we have learned and what has worked. It is basically a contract. For a contract to stand, we are able to legislate to be able to remove the legality of having such a waiver in the first place. It creates a system that is completely unequal because it lets into it people who had signed a waiver whereas some others had not, but if they did not meet the conditions of the redress scheme, they will not even get to this point of the legislation because the schemes are so linked to each other. There are different types of people with different conditions attached to them to be able to access this, so waivers should have been a central part of the discussion. We can use new legislation to do keyhole surgery on other legislation to be able to repeal sections. Later on, we will talk about the gagging order and people not being able speak publicly about what was in their applications. There is no reason we cannot go through one Act to improve what was bad legislation that cut off recourse for people if they were unhappy with the redress they received. Lots of people at the time would have signed to say they would not take a case against the State and sue. When a person is at a point of absolute trauma, with everything being on the TV for the first time and the whole country talking about something, the person's needs are sometimes so high it is like a power imbalance and coercion happens, in that, we will only give people this thing to meet their needs if their sign to say they cannot take a case against us if they at some stage do not feel that this was an adequate or true representation of what they had experienced at the hands of the State or the church. The State has baked into this legislation a protection for the church because some of those waivers were directly related to speaking out against the church. Some waivers covered church and State, some were State alone, and some just the church.Baked into legislation is a protection for the church by way of survivors not being able to take a case against the church. The legislation gives cover to the church because the waivers do not relate only to taking a case against the State. Legislation should concern State schemes and what funding the State puts in. It should not deal with what is coming from the church's coffers. I accept that the Minister cannot make a decision unilaterally to make this provision but the fact it did not form the basis of the development of the legislation is problematic in and of itself. That is why I am seeking a report to look at how we can correct the use of waivers and, later, gagging orders.