13. Other relevant matters

Other redress schemes in Australia

13.1In addition to the National Redress Scheme, there are four other redress schemes currently operating in Australia. There is also talk of more redress schemes being set up in Victoria and Tasmania, but whether these schemes will be established is a matter for the respective state governments.

13.2We heard that it can be confusing for survivors to know which scheme to apply for.[1]

Source: NSW Government, Stolen Generations reparations - Unfinished Business, accessed 15 July 2024, www.nsw.gov.au/living-in-nsw/aboriginal-outcomes/healing/stolen-generations/reparations; National Indigenous Australians Agency, Territories Stolen Generations Redress Scheme, accessed 15 July 2024, https://territoriesredress.gov.au/apply; Victorian Government, Historical Forced Adoptions Redress Scheme, accessed 15 July 2024, www.vic.gov.au/redress-forced-adoptions; Victorian Government, Stolen Generations Reparations Package, accessed 15 July 2024, www.vic.gov.au/stolen-generations-reparations-package.

Scotland’s redress scheme

13.3Scotland has a redress scheme for people who were abused while in care as children before 1 December 2004, and some next of kin. Scotland’s scheme provides:

• Redress payments.
• Non-financial redress, including an apology and emotional support.[2]
  4. The Scottish Government looks after the beginning and end stages of redress where survivors make their application and find out about the outcome of their application. Redress decisions are made by Redress Scotland—a body that is independent from the Scottish Government.
• When a survivor makes a redress application in Scotland, it is sent to Redress Scotland by a Scottish Government caseworker. The application is then placed in a queue.
• When the application reaches the front of the queue, it is allocated a panel day (like an appointment).
• The application is shared with panel members two weeks before the panel day so that they have enough time to prepare. The applicant is told when their panel day is.
• The panel (made up of 2 or 3 members) meets to make a decision about the redress application. They use the Redress for Survivors (Historical Abuse in Care) (Scotland) Act 2021 to help with their decision making about the application. They also consider the eligibility, evidential requirements and other statutory guidance.
• Sometimes, the panel might need more information before they can make their decision.
• Once the panel makes its decision, it tells the Scottish Government. The Scottish Government writes to the survivor to tell them what Redress Scotland decided.
• Survivors can accept or reject their redress offer.[3]
  5. Robbie Gambley, a survivor who applied for redress in Australia in 2018, told us about Scotland’s redress scheme. He said:
• Scotland’s system is better because a ‘whole panel read the brave person’s application’ (the survivor’s application) and ‘the panel makes the decision, not an independent reviewer.’
• Mr Gambley had concerns about the Australian approach: ‘For me, this independent system, where one person reviews the case, is incredibly scary. A person's fate rests in one person’s hands, and I just cannot see how that works.’[4]

Financial abuse and redress

13.6We heard that some people who receive redress money are vulnerable to financial abuse. Essentially, financial abuse is when someone you know tries to stop you spending your money.[5]

13.7Financial abuse may include things like:

• When another person controls access to the money.
• When the money is being taken without knowledge or permission.
• When there is pressure to sign legal documents.
• When there are threats made to get access to the money.[6]
  8. In 2024, on average an eligible redress applicant receives $89,281.[7] People who receive redress could be on fixed incomes or low wages and receiving large amounts of money could make them vulnerable to financial abuse.[8]
  9. Most redress recipients choose to receive a lump sum (all their money in one payment) rather than in smaller portions on a periodic basis.[9] We heard that payments could be received within days of a redress offer being accepted.[10]
  10. The Western NSW Community Legal Centre told us about a client who lacked financial literacy and ‘within a matter of days’ their money was gone.[11]
  11. We received some suggestions on how the risks of financial abuse could be reduced. This included:
• Sending a factsheet about financial abuse together with any correspondence about a successful redress outcome.[12]
• Giving this information in the right window of time, which is likely when someone is considering their redress offer and how they would like the money paid.[13]
• Slightly delaying redress payments, so there is more time for the redress recipient to make informed decisions.[14]
• Consider making financial counselling mandatory.[15]
  12. We heard mixed views on whether financial counselling should be offered.
• Kelso Lawyers said that financial counselling should be offered and encouraged in a similar way to the option of receiving a direct personal response.[16]
• The Survivors and Mates Support Network (SAMSN) cautioned that many people do not trust ‘anything to do with’ counselling and would be ‘very unlikely’ to agree to financial counselling.[17]
• However, knowmore’s submission stated that from May 2019 to December 2022, they had provided financial counselling to 2,067 clients.[18] knowmore said that there should be more funding for financial counselling services.[19]
• The NSW Ageing and Disability Commission said that we ‘should look at’ whether financial counselling and financial planning should be mandatory for everyone who receives redress.[20]
  13. We heard about people being ashamed and embarrassed about redress payments when bank staff queried them.[21]
  14. The NSW Ageing and Disability Commission said that there is a form the Scheme gives applicants about payment options. The form’s length, inaccessible language and high number of choices becomes overwhelming and, we heard, this leads to the lump sum option being selected.[22]
  15. The NSW Ageing and Disability Commission said that forms could be improved by ‘simplifying the language, maximising accessibility, and making it easier for survivors to make informed decisions’.[23]

Footnotes

[1]Micah Projects, Submission4, p. 3; Tuart Place, Submission 17, p. 4; The Healing Foundation, Submission 23, p. 3; Australian Catholic Redress Limited (and others), Submission 25, p. 8.

[2]Scottish Government, Scotland’s Redress Scheme, www.gov.scot/collections/financial-redress-for-survivors-of-child-abuse-in-care/, viewed 12 September 2024.

[3]Redress Scotland, Step-by-step guide, www.redress.scot/applying-for-redress/step-by-step-guide/, viewed 12 September 2024.

[4]Robbie Gambley, Committee Hansard, 2 August 2024, p. 22.

[5]Survivors and Mates Support Network (SAMSN), Supplementary Submission 6.2, attachment.

[6]Moneysmart, ‘Financial Abuse, see https://moneysmart.gov.au/living-in-retirement/financial-abuse.

[7]Department of Social Services, Supplementary Submission 9.24, response IQ24-000185.

[8]SAMSN, Supplementary Submission 6.2, p. 6.

[9]Robert Fitzgerald, New South Wales (NSW) Ageing and Disability Commission (ADC), Committee Hansard, 23 November 2023, p. 32.

[10]People With Disability Australia, Submission 13, p. 1.

[11]Larissa Connolly, Western NSW Community Legal Centre, Committee Hansard, 23 November 2023, p. 38.

[12]Kelso Lawyers, Submission 5, p. 7; SAMSN, Supplementary Submission 6.2, p. 7.

[13]Robert Fitzgerald, NSW ADC, Committee Hansard, 23 November 2023, p. 32.

[14]Robert Fitzgerald, NSW ADC, Committee Hansard, 23 November 2023, p. 32.

[15]Larissa Connolly, Western NSW Community Legal Centre, Committee Hansard, 23 November 2023, p. 39.

[16]Kelso Lawyers, Submission 5, p. 7.

[17]SAMSN, Supplementary Submission 6.2, p. 7.

[18]knowmore, Submission 14, p. 4.

[19]knowmore, Submission 14, p. 52.

[20]Robert Fitzgerald, NSW ADC, Committee Hansard, 23 November 2023, p. 34.

[21]SAMSN, Supplementary Submission 6.2, p. 6.

[22]NSW ADC, Submission 29, p. 4.

[23]NSW ADC, Submission 29, p. 4.