11. Effectiveness of support services

What are redress support services?

11.1There are places that survivors can go when they need help to ask for redress. These places are called redress support services.

11.2Survivors can access redress support services face-to-face, over the phone or online.[1]

11.3Redress support services can help with things like:

• Talking about feelings and emotions.
• Filling out the redress application form and doing paperwork, like letters and emails.
• Sharing information about redress, and other options like civil claims.
• Talking to the Scheme on your behalf.[2]
  4. There are about 45 redress support services.[3]
• A list of redress support services can be found on the Scheme’s website at www.nationalredress.gov.au/help-support.
  5. Other services and places may help survivors with redress if they are asked.

Measuring performance

11.6The Department of Social Services (the Department) measures the performance of redress support services. They are expected to do things that include:

• Provide clear and accessible information and guidance about the Scheme.
• Outreach and promotional activities.
• Assist clients to understand and complete a redress application.
• Provide support to specific survivor groups.
• Provide emotional support and counselling to survivors.
• Provide appropriate referrals as required.
• Assist survivors to seek and obtain a Direct Personal Response.
• Provide transitional support to assist survivors to access counselling and psychological care.
• Ensure all support is delivered in a trauma-informed approach.[4]
  7. Since the Scheme began, 15 210 redress applicants (33%) have had support to complete their application. 31 070 applicants (67%) have not indicated they have used assistance to complete their application.[5]
  8. This may impact on outcomes. Depending on who a survivor asks for help (and whether they receive help at all), the average redress payment varies:
• Supported by a Redress Support Service: $91 114.
• Supported by knowmore Legal Service: $97 018.
• Supporter by another legal support service: $87 302.
• Unsupported: $86 013.[6]

Funding for redress support services

11.9The Australian Government funds redress support services. This means that redress support services can help survivors for free.

11.10Redress support services are given money for periods of two years. Grants for redress support services are managed by a Funding Agreement Manager at the Department of Social Services. This makes sure everyone knows how the money will be spent.[7]

11.11Table 11.1 shows the amount of money the Scheme has spent on redress support services since the 2018–19 financial year.

Source: Department of Social Services, Supplementary Submission 9.23, response IQ24-000165.

11.12We heard that redress support services need more funding to be able to help more survivors.

11.13knowmore, a redress legal support service, told us:

• Reduced funding ‘will prevent us from meeting… rising demand for our services and require a reduction in our important services to clients’.[8]
• The ‘modest’ funding the Australian Government has budgeted for redress support services means that many survivors are ‘simply not going to be able to access the support they need’.[9] For example:

• $80.1 million budgeted for redress support services over 5 years from 2023 to 2027.
• There are 45 redress support services in locations around Australia.
• While funding levels may change (and possibly increase in future), each redress support service may receive, on average, $1.84 million over 5 years or around $368000 each year.[10]
  14. Survivors and Mates Support Network (SAMSN), based in New South Wales, said that they are the only redress support service specialising in male survivors.[11] However, there are likely to be lots of men who need support when applying for redress.[12] SAMSN said:

• Survivors may be turned away because funding for redress support services does not meet demand.[13]
• Survivors may be referred elsewhere, although ‘most services have waitlists and are struggling to keep up’.[14]
• They need more funding to provide services nationally, or otherwise there needs to be funding given to other male support services.[15]
  15. Some redress support services suggested ways to improve how services are funded:
• Micah Projects, a redress support service in Queensland, said that redress support services should be ‘funded on a recurrent basis’.[16]
• People with Disability Australia (PWDA), a redress support service based in Sydney, said that redress support services should be funded for four-year periods.[17]
• The Women’s Cottage, a redress support service in New South Wales (NSW), said that funding for redress support services should be ‘ongoing for the life of the Scheme’.
• The Women’s Cottage added that they ‘cannot honestly promise what vulnerable survivors need, which is a familiar service to be with them all through their process’.[18]

Accessibility of redress support services

11.16We heard that it can be hard for some survivors to access the Scheme and redress support services.

11.17For example, Western NSW Community Legal Centre and Western Women's Legal Support said:

• Most of their clients live in regional, rural and remote areas.
• There could be access barriers related to disability, limited literacy, incarceration (prison) and limited money.
• They may have experienced ‘significant trauma’ from domestic violence.[19]
  18. Blue Knot Foundation (Blue Knot), a redress support service based in Sydney, said that it can be harder for First Nations survivors, survivors from culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) backgrounds and survivors with disability to access the Scheme.[20]
• They suggested creating an ‘additional support’ option for the Scheme’s website and phone, which could include interpretation, translation or the National Relay Service.[21]
• They also suggested making the Scheme’s website more accessible so that survivors can find phone numbers more easily.[22]
  19. We were told that support services are ‘generally funded for counselling services, not outreach and holistic case management’. In turn, this limits access to the Scheme for anyone who needs transport, a person who is ‘opposed to attending traditional talk therapy’ and survivors living in regional and remote locations.[23]
  20. Tuart Place, a support service based in Fremantle, Western Australia (WA), said that a community agency model is optimal for redress survivors. Features of this model include:
• Building trust and safety over time.
• The setting is welcoming and accessible for clients with a mobility impairment.
• There are open spaces, closed spaces, counselling and support groups.
• Referrals can be arranged (such as legal, financial and aged care).
• Help with technology is offered. The Internet has ‘left behind’ many older survivors.[24]
  21. Tuart Place said that this model is non-bureaucratic and informal, which can help survivors to build trust before engaging in the retraumatising redress process.[25]

Source: Department of Social Services, Supplementary Submission 9.24, response IQ24-000185

Services for First Nations survivors

11.22The Department told us there are 12 redress support services that focus on helping First Nations survivors.[26] Despite this, we heard that access to redress support services for First Nations survivors is ‘patchy’.[27]

11.23The Aboriginal Family Legal Service (AFLS), a redress support service in WA, told us that accessing redress can be hard for First Nations survivors living in remote and rural areas. AFLS said:

• There are about 200 remote communities in Western Australia.[28]
• They do not have the resources or staff to travel and meet with survivors thinking about applying for redress.[29]
• Many survivors want to talk face face-to-face, instead of on the phone.[30]
• More resources are needed for translation services and culturally appropriate counselling options in communities where English is not the first language.[31]

• Services like Aboriginal Interpreting Western Australia could help to translate information about redress for radio recordings, pamphlets, talking posters and conversations with survivors.[32]
• Interpreting services could be made up of elders from First Nations communities, who might assist with navigating any cultural sensitivities.[33]
  24. The Healing Foundation, a redress support service, suggested ways the Scheme could improve accessibility for First Nations survivors, including:

• Better representation of First Nations staff working for the Scheme.
• Better understanding of the impacts of abuse for First Nations survivors, including intergenerational and collective trauma.
• Training for Scheme staff.[34]
  25. Some redress support services told us about what they are doing to make it easier for First Nations survivors to seek help. For example:
• Relationships Australia Northern Territory (NT), a redress support service, said they have staff who focus on providing culturally appropriate and sensitive support to survivors.[35]
• The Women’s Cottage said that First Nations survivors said they like that the Women’s Cottage understand the complications of generational trauma and complex care arrangements.[36]
  26. knowmore has Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Engagement Advisors who said they have been to places where people have ‘never heard’ about redress, especially in regional, rural and remote areas.[37]
  27. AFLS suggested talking posters that play recorded information in different languages, and advertisements on community radio in the local language.[38]

Services for people with disability

11.28The Department recognised that survivors with disability can face ‘wide ranging’ barriers when accessing redress.[39]

11.29There are 3 redress support services that focus on supporting survivors with disability.[40] However, these services can be hard to access. For example, PWDA can help survivors face-to-face across NSW and some places in Queensland (Qld), but they can only help survivors in other states and territories online or on the phone.[41]

11.30Micah Projects, a redress support service based in Qld, said that survivors with psycho-social disability are ‘often difficult to manage’ and would benefit from specialist disability support services.[42]

11.31PWDA told us:

• Accessibility should be a priority for the Scheme.
• Each person's lived experience is different.
• The Scheme has worked hard ‘to improve accessibility, but there is still a long way to go’.
• For example, the Scheme needs to communicate better with ‘people with vision impairments and those who are deaf or hard of hearing.’
• They ‘constantly come across new barriers to access the scheme’ as they work with more people.[43]
  32. Some redress support services told us about what they are doing to make it easier for survivors with disability to seek help. For example:
• Relationships Australia told us they have developed Disability Action Plans to reduce barriers experienced by survivors with disability.[44]
• The Women’s Cottage said that women with disability told them that they like that the Women’s Cottage is flexible about meetings and welcome their support workers.[45]

Survivors from culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) backgrounds

11.33We heard that there is only one redress support service that specialises in services for survivors from CALD backgrounds.[46] This service is called Loddon Campaspe Multicultural Services (LCMS) and they are based in Bendigo, Victoria.[47]

11.34LCMS estimated that CALD survivors are ‘alarmingly under-represented’ among applications to the Scheme.[48] CALD includes migrants, refugees and people from multicultural backgrounds.

11.35Key issues included:

• Language barriers and finding interpreters.
• Time, trust, familiarity and face-to-face talking can be important in refugee and migrant communities.[49]
  36. LCMS also told us about other challenges for survivors from CALD backgrounds with accessing redress, which included:
• The Scheme is an administrative process with systems ‘that by its nature is inflexible’. A culturally sensitive approach is needed, noting that sensitivities can vary among and within cultures.[50]
• Refugees and migrants may have ‘trauma stacked on trauma’, including surviving and witnessing violence, immigration detention and racial discrimination.[51]
• Shame and stigma about sexual abuse can be difficult to overcome. This can make it hard for survivors to ask for help or talk about redress unless protective support is available.[52]
• Many survivors may not have time to prioritise redress because of other stresses including housing, work and money.[53]
• Survivors from CALD backgrounds often prefer an organisation that they know or they may prefer to avoid an organisation with staff from their own cultural background.[54]
• However, when using an interpreter, protecting privacy can be hard because the interpreter could be someone from the same community.[55]
• There are ‘barely’ any accredited interpreters, especially in regional areas. This means interpretation is done ‘via the telephone, which can be hard to achieve a trauma-informed approach’.[56]
  37. LCMS suggested ways the Scheme could be improved for CALD survivors, which included:
• Culturally respectful information sessions with translated information available to create relationships and build trust.[57]
• Information sessions could be at a festivity or event where community members are invited. Words like redress would not be used. The aim would be to build relationships and awareness among service providers who can talk to community members ‘without talking about the elephant in the room’.[58]
• While information has been translated into some languages, it is ‘very late’ and the Scheme should expand the languages available.[59]
• There needs to be more bilingual and bicultural support and advocacy for survivors seeking redress.[60] This could include training on specialised topics for redress support services.[61]
• A strategy on cultural and linguistic diversity specific to working with CALD clients on redress.[62]

Source: Department of Social Services, Supplementary Submission 9.24, response IQ24-000185; Department of Social Services, Supplementary Submission 9.23, response IQ24-000176.

Survivors in prison

11.38From 4 April 2024, the law changed so that survivors in prison could apply for redress.[63] Until this change, prisoners could only apply for redress in exceptional circumstances.[64]

11.39knowmore said that the number of survivors in prison who become eligible for redress will ‘place significant additional demands on knowmore and other support services.’[65] Survivors in prison are more likely to need more support for reasons that include:

• People with disability and Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander people with disability are overrepresented in Australian prisons.
• Many people in prison have mental health conditions.
• People in prison may have experienced unemployment and homelessness.[66]
  40. knowmore also told us about the barriers they expect they will face when trying to support survivors in prison with their redress application. Examples included:
• Survivors in prison cannot be contacted by phone, email or in person without ‘significant planning’.
• It is difficult to organise confidential phone calls with survivors in prison due to limited spaces for these calls in prisons, and limited resources for prison staff.
• Some survivors in prison do not want to share information because they do not trust the legal system and concerns about confidentiality.
• Survivors in prison do not have access to documents (for example, for identification or bank account details).
• Appointments with survivors in prison can be delayed or cancelled if the prison goes into lockdown.
• Prisoners have limited access to support from family, friends and support services.[67]
  41. PWDA told us they have noticed an increase in wait times for knowmore since the Scheme opened to survivors in prison.[68]
  42. Given the expected increase in redress applications from prisons, knowmore said they would need an additional $3.5 million a year to help survivors in prison ‘at the same level that it’s delivered to all other survivors’.[69]
  43. knowmore added:
• Around 10,000 applications from prisoners have been ‘on hold’ in anticipation of eligibility reforms, meaning that there is ‘a huge backlog of work’[70]
• The Department of Social Services is getting about 200 phone calls per day from within prisons.[71]
• Services are ‘saturated’ and while additional resources would help, there is a ‘very strong possibility’ that survivors will drop their pursuit of redress.[72]
  44. Figures available to us show that a large proportion of redress applications from prisons are being processed or assessed.

Source: Department of Social Services, Supplementary Submission 9.24, response IQ24-000185; Department of Social Services, Supplementary Submission 9.23, response IQ24-000176.

Lack of awareness about redress

11.45While the Scheme has been running for more than 6 years, we heard there are still lots of survivors who do not know about redress.[73]

11.46The NSW Ageing and Disability Commission (ADC), which protects people with disability and older people in NSW who experience abuse, said that raising awareness about the Scheme mainly rests with redress support services.[74]

11.47The Department funds redress support services to undertake community engagement and promotional activities.[75] The Department has provided additional funding to several redress support services to run in person workshops.[76] Redress support services can also share information about redress, including on their websites, social media, posters, pamphlets and on radio.[77]

11.48We heard that there is limited promotion of the National Redress Scheme at Centrelink offices. Further:

• Centrelink staff ‘generally don’t know what the Scheme is’.[78]
• Centrelink or Services Australia’s website has ‘hidden’ information about redress and placed a topic relating to institutional child sexual abuse within the context of living arrangements and family violence.[79]
• We were advised about a design issue with the Centrelink website’s structure.[80]
  49. We checked the website and pictured it below. Links to information about the National Redress Scheme are hard to find.

Source: www.servicesaustralia.gov.au/national-redress-scheme?context=60033

11.50Something that is missing, we heard, is a nationally ‘consistent, identifiable logo and messaging’ about redress.[81]

Language barriers

11.51Redress support services told us:

• Some people ‘don’t know’ that they could get redress or that they experienced child sexual abuse.[82]
• More should be done to make survivors aware of redress.[83]
• Media advertising about the Scheme (like ads on TV, or the radio) is avoided because it can retraumatise survivors, or survivors who cannot get redress.[84]
• Survivors with disability often only know about redress if someone else tells them, like their carer or support person.[85]
• Having trouble reading English can make it harder to learn about redress, how to apply for redress and where to find redress support services.[86]
• Outreach has helped to build awareness but more could be done ‘to meet specific needs of cohorts’ including survivors with disability, First Nations survivors or survivors from CALD backgrounds.[87]
• The concept of the ‘national redress scheme’ may not translate into sign language or First Nations languages.[88]
• There are a several redress schemes in Australia. Each one is different. Knowing which one to apply for can be confusing.[89]
  52. Maurice Blackburn, a private law firm, said that poor awareness of redress support services might lead survivors to apply for redress without help or seek help from unethical lawyers.[90]
  53. LCMS, a redress support service from Bendigo, said that some translated information about the Scheme became available in 2023 (the Scheme’s fifth year). Only at this point could people from CALD backgrounds learn about redress.[91]
  54. Blue Knot told us that many people from CALD backgrounds do not know about redress and counselling.[92]
  55. Some redress support services suggested ways to improve communication about the Scheme. For example:
• Australian Catholic Redress Limited suggested a public communication strategy to help promote the Scheme.[93]
• Micah Projects said that a ‘grassroots approach’ to sharing information about redress would help build awareness.[94]
• The NSW ADC suggested a national community communication and education campaign. Community organisations can help connect survivors with support.[95]
• SAMSN said that there should be media campaigns and community education programs to promote the Scheme. SAMSN said that the ‘anger and distress’ when survivors miss out on redress will ‘far outweigh any misplaced concern that promotion… will retraumatise survivors’.[96]
  56. However, while we heard that awareness about the Scheme needs to improve, increasing numbers of survivors are applying for redress. This is likely because:
• Survivors applying for redress no longer have to sign a legal document called a statutory declaration.
• Some steps to apply for redress can now be done online using MyGov (a government website).
• Awareness about redress is slowly spreading around by word of mouth.[97]
  57. SAMSN told us that information about redress needs to reach suburban communities, ‘where we are still finding there is little or no information’.[98]

Limited information reaching survivors with disability

11.58PWDA said that ‘the reason we weren’t getting anyone coming to us was that people didn’t know the Scheme existed’.[99] In addition, PWDA said:

• There were only a few people talked to them about redress at the beginning, but they began travelling around NSW to visit community service organisations and tell them about redress and then more client referrals grew.[100]
• Outreach work is uncoordinated and redress support services tend to do ‘a little bit here and a little bit there’.[101]
• Coordination would help ensure that visits to townships are shared around among support services. The Department should help with this coordination.[102]
• There needs to be a public education campaign aimed at survivors with disability, their families and supporters to improve awareness about redress.[103]
  59. Micah Projects suggested increasing awareness among people with disability by focusing on:
• Carers and families of people with disability.
• Disability support service providers and aged care service providers.
• The National Disability Insurance Scheme.
• Peer groups like the Queensland Disability Network.
  60. knowmore said there should be a targeted communication and engagement strategy for survivors with disability:
• However, if this strategy works, knowmore also told us that specialised disability and legal services would need funding to meet greater demand.
• Therefore, knowmore said that funding should be an ‘essential’ part of the strategy.[104]

Demand and waiting lists

11.61We heard that there is a lot of demand for redress support services. This has led to long waiting lists and can make redress harder to access.[105]

11.62Work done by support services helps speed up processing. The Department said that redress applications from survivors who had help from a redress support service to do their application are easier to process and ‘generally’ more complete.[106]

11.63knowmore said:

• More survivors are asking for their help.[107]
• They do not have enough money to help everyone.[108]
• Wait times for appointments with knowmore in 2022 were around 2 to 3 weeks. In 2023, wait times were longer of around 4 to 6 weeks.[109]
  64. Blue Knot said:
• Survivors are waiting longer (up to 8 weeks) to get help from knowmore.
• Wait times lengthened while knowmore lost funding and staff.
• This is also impacting on the quality of knowmore’s advice.[110]
  65. Micah Projects said:
• Their waiting list means it takes 3 to 6 months for them to see a survivor who is thinking about applying for redress.
• Having to wait a long time can make survivors reluctant to get help.
• Making more survivors aware of redress would likely mean more demand for redress support services.
• Redress support services are helping survivors ‘long after the application is finished and payment made’, possibly for years afterwards.[111]
  66. Tuart Place said:
• A number of redress support services have long waiting lists.
• Long wait lists for redress support services make it more difficult for survivors to get help.
• Having to wait to talk to a redress support service can be retraumatising or triggering. This is ‘inconsistent’ with redress’ trauma-informed principles.
• There needs to be better resourcing for places that have high demand and long waiting lists.[112]
  67. The Healing Foundation said that many Stolen Generations Organisations do not have enough resources and ‘rely on senior staff… to help with processing applications’.[113]
  68. AFLS said:
• They ‘have a constant flow of applicants’.[114]
• There needs to ‘be greater investment… into Aboriginal Community Controlled Organisations’.[115]
• Their lack of resources mean it is harder to help First Nations survivors in WA. AFLS estimated that they need an extra $750 000 per year to do their work.
• Investing in specialised Aboriginal-controlled services is a more culturally safe and effective option to support First Nations survivors access redress.
• Aboriginal Community Controlled Organisations should receive funding so they can travel to remote communities.[116]
  69. We heard that delays and lengthy waitlists have had several effects. For example:
• Delays have become prohibitive to survivors applying for redress.
• Support services are caring for clients over a longer period, which means there is less capacity for promotion and outreach.
• The Royal Commission predicted high demand for redress but the Scheme continually attributes its delays to ‘unprecedented’ demand.
• Administrative issues – boxes not ticked, forms lost, no updates given – creates a burden that ‘prolongs the progress of the Scheme outcomes and adds to the distress of the community members and worker burnout’.[117]

Giving advice to survivors

11.70Redress support services can help survivors with their redress applications. This includes by giving advice about whether a person might be able to get redress.

• Many survivors want to know whether they can get redress, and how much, before they start an application.
• It can be hard to know what information to include in a redress application. If important details are left out, it could impact on a person’s redress outcome. Equally, asking person to share too much information might cause distress.
• Many survivors need support before and after talking about their abuse, including counselling.[118]
  71. Micah Projects said:
• They have developed ‘a high level of confidence’ around whether a person’s circumstances will lead to a redress outcome.
• This ‘working knowledge’ means that they could identify potential issues early, like missing information, that could cause problems later.
• The ‘last thing you want to do is support somebody through a process, knowing that it might not lead to an offer’ because this could ‘risk doing more harm than good’.[119]
• There is ‘a high level of unpredictability’ around extreme circumstances.[120]
  72. Micah Projects also told us that the options (or pathways) to justice can be ‘quite confusing’ and ‘unpleasant’ when explained to clients. If someone prefers civil litigation, then they must choose a lawyer and then navigate a complex costs agreement. Equally, applying for redress is not an easy decision.[121] About half the people who approach Micah Projects pursue a redress application.[122]
  73. PWDA said:
• They ‘often have a pretty good idea’ about whether someone can get redress.
• They aim to ‘always manage people’s expectations’.
• Occasionally, they have seen ‘anomalies’ and unexpected results for redress outcomes.[123]
  74. PWDA also told us that all the steps to apply for redress – from filling in forms to receiving a direct and personal response – can take more than two years in complex cases. This means they cannot give survivors certainty about who will help them for the entirety of the application process.[124]
  75. Care Leavers Australasia Network (CLAN) said:
• Redress is meant to be easier than civil litigation, but they said survivors find the process of applying for redress ‘retraumatising’, especially when an application is rejected.
• They ‘almost feel complicit’ in that trauma when suggesting survivors apply for redress.
• While redress is intended to provide acknowledgement, validation and a sense of justice, they said that ‘for many that is not the reality’ and this puts CLAN in a difficult position.[125]
  76. A survivor told us that from their observations, staff in support roles became less confident and emotionally exhausted ‘as they deal with… distress and sense of hopelessness… and unexpectedly harsh outcomes’. This undermines their ability to support applicants ‘at such a vulnerable time’.[126]

Counselling

11.77Support services told us about how counselling can help survivors with their healing journey. We heard that making counselling available sooner would help survivors complete their applications.[127]

11.78Survivors can access counselling at the end of the redress process when they get their redress offer. However, survivors can feel most vulnerable when starting their redress application.[128] This means that survivors who are found ineligible for redress are not offered counselling.[129]

11.79The Scheme offers eligible survivors counselling and psychological care up to a value of $5,000. Since the Scheme started, the average paid for this component of redress is around $4,500.[130] While most survivors receive the maximum amount possible, some choose not to accept counselling.

Source: Department of Social Services, Supplementary Submission 9.23, response IQ24-000171.Note: survivors may be in multiple groups and counted more than once.

11.80Blue Knot told us that some survivors have never accessed counselling before and don’t know what it is or how to access these services.[132]

11.81Tuart Place said:

• Asking redress applicants details about their abuse may ‘undermine the psychological manoeuvres of avoidance and suppression used by survivors to cope with traumatic memories’.[133]
• Counselling and psychological care should be routinely offered and options considered for redress applicants who do not have a support service to help them.[134]
• Counselling is ‘essential’ during the redress application and assessment process.[135]
• Survivors may feel reassured and comforted by knowing that counselling is available if needed.[136]
• If counselling is mentioned, some survivors may ‘reject the idea outright’.[137]
  82. The Women’s Cottage said:
• Survivors may present with a range of complex trauma that cannot be easily resolved with counselling. In some cases, a ‘lot of work has to happen’ so that survivors can ‘attend a regular appointment with a professional and make use of their skills’.[138]
• Many survivors have experienced lives of trauma and chaos, which cannot be ‘sorted with a referral to a counsellor’.
• The Scheme has under-estimated how much support reluctant groups of survivors would need and appears to have ‘lost’ its aim of being trauma-informed.[139]
  83. We heard that counselling can be difficult to access if a person receives redress but now lives elsewhere. State and territory governments arrange counselling services and will not always help unless the abuse occurred in the same state or territory.
  84. We were told that the approach should be nationally consistent and follow best practice guided by the Centre for Prevention of Child Sexual Abuse.[140]
  85. We also heard that each state and territory has different procedures to access counselling. PWDA said that ‘it is extremely difficult to access information on what is required’.[141]
  86. knowmore said that counselling should meet the Scheme’s standards, which requires counselling to be ‘collaborative, available, accessible, high quality and inclusive of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander healing approaches’.[142]
  87. knowmore told us that they had concerns about the counselling options being offered to survivors with disability and/or who are First Nations. Some problems included:
• Seeking reasonable adjustments.
• Distance from services.
• Counselling models being based around Westernised ideas rather than First Nations practices (such as healing circles or connection to culture).[143]

Relations with the Department of Social Services

11.88Some redress support services told us about how the Department could improve the way the Scheme works.

• PWDA said that the Department has been receptive to requests for flexibility (such as where an applicant cannot sign their name). However, PWDA said that while ‘appreciative… a faster turnaround is needed’ because delays and barriers can have ‘severe impacts’ on the applicant’s wellbeing.[144]
• SAMSN suggested that the Scheme should provide updates to applicants and redress support services about how applications are progressing.[145]
• Blue Knot said that there should be a dedicated phone line for redress support services to contact the Scheme.[146]
  89. Tuart Place told us about some problems with the Scheme’s Helpline. This is the phone number that redress support services can call to talk to the Department about redress applications.
• The Helpline operates between 8.00am and 5.00pm Canberra time Monday to Friday.
• If support services call outside of these hours, they are asked to leave a voice message. But this is not helpful for survivors who do not have a mobile phone or are homeless.
• The Department only lets redress support services talk about three redress applicants per phone call.
• This makes it difficult for support service staff to get their work done.
• Sometimes support service staff have to call the Department two or three times.
• This is particularly hard for support services in Western Australia, who have less time to call the Department because they are three hours behind Canberra (in summer).[147]
  90. Since the initial submission from Tuart Place, we note that in June 2024, the Scheme opened an office opened in Perth.[148]
  91. We heard that the Scheme relies on posting things in the mail, which leads to delays.[149]
• Tuart Place said that ‘secure email communication between support services and the Scheme would assist in reducing lengthy delays’.[150]
• LCMS said that the Scheme should establish a secure method to exchange documents electronically and to track application status.[151]
  92. Redress support services also need to provide information to the Department every six months.[152] These are called data exchange reports.
• LCMS said their experience with the Department’s reporting system DEX (‘Data EXchange') is that it cannot be used as a ‘stand-alone client and file management system’.
• As a result, they have had to consider using a paper file system or an expensive modern system.[153]

Footnotes

[1]Department of Social Services, Submission 9, p. 5.

[2]See: National Redress Scheme, What are Redress Support Services, https://www.nationalredress.gov.au/help-support, viewed 30 September 2024.

[3]Department of Social Services, Submission 9, p. 6.

[4]Department of Social Services, Supplementary Submission 9.8, response IQ23-000146.

[5]Department of Social Services, Supplementary Submission 9.23, response IQ24-000178.

[6]Department of Social Services, Supplementary Submission 9.23, response IQ24-000178.

[7]Department of Social Services, Supplementary Submission 9.8, response IQ23-000146.

[8]knowmore, Supplementary Submission 14.2, p. 4.

[9]knowmore, Supplementary Submission 14.2, p. 17.

[10]Commonwealth of Australia, Budget Paper No. 2: Budget Measures 2023–24, p. 196.

[11]Survivors and Mates Support Network (SAMSN), Submission 6, p. 2. See also: Maurice Blackburn, Submission 18, p. 4.

[12]SAMSN, Submission 6, p. 5.

[13]Craig Hughes-Cashmore, SAMSN, Committee Hansard, 7 July 2023, p. 8

[14]Craig Hughes-Cashmore, SAMSN, Committee Hansard, 7 July 2023, p. 8

[15]SAMSN, Submission 6, p. 5.

[16]Micah Projects, Submission 4, p. 8.

[17]Karen Kobier, People with Disability Australia (PWDA), Committee Hansard, 12 September 2023, p. 4.

[18]The Women’s Cottage, Submission 12, pp. 2–3.

[19]Western NSW Community Legal Centre and Western Women's Legal Support, Submission 15, p. 2.

[20]Blue Knot Foundation (Blue Knot), Submission 11, p. 2.

[21]Blue Knot, Submission 11, p. 3.

[22]Blue Knot, Submission 11, p. 3.

[23]Name withheld, Submission 45, p. 1.

[24]Tuart Place, Submission 17, p. 8.

[25]Tuart Place, Submission 17, p. 8.

[26]Department of Social Services, Submission 9, p. 6.

[27]Blue Knot, Submission 11, p. 7.

[28]Kim Axford, Aboriginal Family Legal Service (AFLS) WA, Committee Hansard, 7 July 2023, p. 12.

[29]Kim Axford, AFLS WA, Committee Hansard, 7 July 2023, p. 12.

[30]Kim Axford, AFLS WA, Committee Hansard, 7 July 2023, p. 15. See also: AFLS WA, Submission 8, p. 7.

[31]Kim Axford, AFLS WA, Committee Hansard, 7 July 2023, p. 12. See also: Western NSW Community Legal Centre and Western Women's Legal Support, Submission 15, p. 2.

[32]AFLS WA, Submission 8, p. 5.

[33]Kim Axford, AFLS WA, Committee Hansard, 7 July 2023, p. 14.

[34]Shannan Dodson, The Healing Foundation, Committee Hansard, 23 November 2023, p. 24.

[35]Relationships Australia NT, Submission 21, p. 1.

[36]The Women’s Cottage, Submission 12, p. 2.

[37]knowmore, Submission 14, p. 36.

[38]Kim Axford, AFLS WA, Committee Hansard, 7 July 2023, p. 13.

[39]Department of Social Services, Submission 9, p. 4.

[40]Department of Social Services, Submission9, p. 6.

[41]PWDA, Submission 13, p. 1. See also: South Australian Public Advocate, Submission 1, p. 11.

[42]Micah Projects, Submission 4, p. 6.

[43]Karen Korbier, PWDA, Committee Hansard, 12 September 2023, pp. 1–2. See also: PWDA, Submission 13.2, pp. 2–4.

[44]Relationships Australia, Submission 10, p. 3.

[45]The Women’s Cottage, Submission 12, p. 2.

[46]See: Department of Social Services, Submission 9, p. 6.

[47]Loddon Campaspe Multicultural Services (LCMS), Submission 24, p. 3.

[48]LCMS, Supplementary Submission 24.1, p. 2.

[49]Sonia di Mezza, Loddon Campaspe Multicultural Services, Committee Hansard, 20 October 2023, p. 22.

[50]LCMS, Supplementary Submission 24.1, p. 3; Sonia di Mezza, Loddon Campaspe Multicultural Services, Committee Hansard, 20 October 2023, p. 21.

[51]LCMS, Supplementary Submission 24.1, p. 4.

[52]Sonia di Mezza, LCMS, Committee Hansard, 20 October 2023, p. 21.

[53]LCMS, Supplementary Submission 24.1, p. 5.

[54]LCMS, Submission 24, p. 7.

[55]LCMS, Supplementary Submission 24.1, p. 4.

[56]Sonia di Mezza, LCMS, Committee Hansard, 20 October 2023, p. 22.

[57]LCMS, Submission 24, p. 8.

[58]Sonia di Mezza and Karl Schaffarczck, LCMS, Committee Hansard, 20 October 2023, pp. 23–24.

[59]Karl Schaffarczck, LCMS, Committee Hansard, 20 October 2023, p. 22.

[60]LCMS, Submission 24, p. 8.

[61]Sonia di Mezza, LCMS, Committee Hansard, 20 October 2023, p. 22.

[62]LCMS, Supplementary Submission 24.1, p. 6.

[63]knowmore, Supplementary Submission 14.4, p. 3. See: National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Amendment Act 2024 (Cth).

[64]knowmore, Supplementary Submission 14.5, p. 19.

[65]knowmore, Supplementary Submission 14.2, p. 11. See also: knowmore, Supplementary Submission 14.5, p. 19.

[66]knowmore, Supplementary Submission 14.2, p. 11–12.

[67]knowmore, Supplementary Submission 14.2, p. 13; knowmore, Supplementary Submission 14.5, p. 23. See also: Gary Oliver, knowmore Legal Service, Committee Hansard, 2 August 2024, pp. 26, 28; PWDA, Submission 13.2, p. 4.

[68]PWDA, Submission 13.2, p. 3.

[69]Jackie Mead, knowmore, Committee Hansard, 21 August 2024, p. 27; see also knowmore, Supplementary Submission 14.4, p. 2.

[70]Gary Oliver, knowmore, Committee Hansard, 21 August 2024, p. 27.

[71]Gary Oliver, knowmore, Committee Hansard, 21 August 2024, p. 27.

[72]Jackie Mead, knowmore, Committee Hansard, 21 August 2024, p. 32.

[73]PWDA, Submission 13, p. 1; PWDA, Submission 13.2, p. 2.

[74]NSW Ageing and Disability Commission (ADC), Submission 29, p. 3.

[75]Department of Social Services, Supplementary Submission 9.19, response IQ24-000159.

[76]Department of Social Services, Supplementary Submission 9.19, response IQ24-000159.

[77]AFLS WA, Supplementary Submission 8.2, p. 2.

[78]Name withheld, Submission 45, pp. 1–2.

[79]Name withheld, Submission 45, pp. 1–2.

[80]Val Still, Department of Social Services, Committee Hansard, 18 August 2024, p. 4.

[81]Name withheld, Submission 45, p. 1.

[82]Blue Knot, Submission 11, p. 4.

[83]The Women’s Cottage, Submission 12, p. 2.

[84]AFLS WA, Supplementary Submission 8.2, p. 2.

[85]Karen Korbier, PWDA, Committee Hansard, 12 September 2024, p. 2.

[86]See for example: Philippa White, Tuart Place, Committee Hansard, 12 April 2023, p. 14.

[87]Blue Knot, Submission 11, p. 4.

[88]Darcy Orr, Micah Projects, Committee Hansard, 7 July 2023, p. 4.

[89]Micah Projects, Submission 4, p. 4.

[90]Maurice Blackburn, Submission 18, p. 5.

[91]Karl Schaffarczck, LCMS, Committee Hansard, 20 October 2023, p. 24.

[92]Blue Knot, Submission 11, pp. 3–4.

[93]Australian Catholic Redress Limited, Submission 25, p. 6.

[94]Micah Projects, Supplementary Submission 4.1, p. 1.

[95]NSW Ageing and Disability Commission (ADC), Submission 29, p. 3.

[96]Micah Projects, Supplementary Submission 4.1, p. 4.

[97]Micah Projects, Supplementary Submission 4.1, p. 1; Tuart Place, Submission 17, p. 5.

[98]SAMSN, Submission 6, p. 3.

[99]Karen Kobier, PWDA, Committee Hansard, 12 September 2023, p. 4. See also: PWDA, Submission 13, pp. 1–2.

[100]Karen Kobier, PWDA, Committee Hansard, 12 September 2023, p. 4.

[101]Karen Kobier, PWDA, Committee Hansard, 12 September 2023, p. 6.

[102]Karen Kobier, PWDA, Committee Hansard, 12 September 2023, p. 6.

[103]PWDA, Submission 13, p. 4.

[104]knowmore, Submission 14, p. 29.

[105]See: Department of Social Services, Submission 9, p. 6; Tuart Place, Submission 17, p. 18.

[106]Department of Social Services, Submission 9, p. 6. See also: Department of Social Services, Supplementary Submission 9.8, response IQ23-000146.

[107]knowmore, Supplementary Submission 14.1, p. 4; knowmore, Supplementary Submission 14.2, pp. 5–6.

[108]knowmore, Supplementary Submission 14.1, p. 4; knowmore, Supplementary Submission 14.2, pp. 5–6.

[109]knowmore, Supplementary Submission 14.1, pp. 4–5.

[110]Blue Knot, Supplementary Submission 11.2, p. 2.

[111]Micah Projects, Submission 4, p. 8.

[112]Tuart Place, Submission 17, p. 18.

[113]The Healing Foundation, Submission 23, p. 3.

[114]AFLS WA, Supplementary Submission 8.2, p. 4.

[115]AFLS WA, Submission 8, p. 4.

[116]AFLS WA, Submission 8, pp. 4–5; AFLS WA, Supplementary Submission 8.2, pp.2, 4.

[117]Name withheld, Submission 45, pp. 1–2.

[118]Micah Projects, Submission 4, p. 2; SAMSN, Supplementary Submission 6.2, p. 2.

[119]Darcy Orr, Micah Projects, Committee Hansard, 7 July 2023, p. 3.

[120]Micah Projects, Supplementary Submission 4.1, p. 1.

[121]Darcy Orr, Micah Projects, Committee Hansard, 7 July 2023, p. 2.

[122]Darcy Orr, Micah Projects, Committee Hansard, 7 July 2023, p. 3.

[123]Karen Kobier, PWDA, Committee Hansard, 12 September 2023, p. 6.

[124]Karen Kobier, PWDA, Committee Hansard, 12 September 2023, p. 3.

[125]Natalie Wallace, Care Leavers Australasia Network (CLAN), Committee Hansard, 7 July 2023, p. 17.

[126]Name withheld, Submission 51, p. 4.

[127]Micah Projects, Submission 4, p. 5; LCMS, Submission 24, p. 7.

[128]Micah Projects, Submission 4, p. 5.

[129]CLAN, Submission 22, p. 7.

[130]Department of Social Services, Supplementary Submission 9.23, response IQ24-000170.

[131]The National Redress Scheme’s reporting functionality was not completely developed in the first year of operation. Data for the first 2 financial years (2018–19 and 2019–20) has therefore been combined.

[132]Blue Knot, Submission 11, p. 3.

[133]Tuart Place, Submission 17, p. 7.

[134]Tuart Place, Submission 17, p. 8.

[135]Tuart Place, Submission 17, p. 7.

[136]Tuart Place, Submission 17, p. 8.

[137]Tuart Place, Submission 17, p. 7.

[138]The Women’s Cottage, Submission 12, p. 3.

[139]The Women’s Cottage, Submission 12, p. 3.

[140]Name Withheld, Submission 45, p. 2.

[141]PWDA, Supplementary Submission 13.1, p. 1.

[142]knowmore, Submission 14, pp. 32, 44. See also: Definition of National Service Standards in the ‘Guides to Social Policy Law: National Redress Guide’ (Version 1.23), https://guides.dss.gov.au/national-redress-guide/1/1/n/20.

[143]knowmore, Submission 14, pp. 32, 44.

[144]PWDA, Submission 13, p. 7.

[145]SAMSN, Submission 6, p. 4.

[146]Blue Knot, Submission 11, p. 10.

[147]Tuart Place, Submission 17, p. 17.

[148]Department of Social Services, Supplementary Submission 9.21, p. 3.

[149]See: SAMSN, Submission 6, p. 2; LCMS, Submission 24, p. 7.

[150]Tuart Place, Submission 17, p. 9.

[151]LCMS, Submission 24, p. 7.

[152]Department of Social Services, Supplementary Submission 9.8, response IQ23-000146.

[153]LCMS, Submission 24, p. 6.