14. Evidence from the Department of Social Services

What is the Department’s role?

14.1The Department looks after the Scheme on behalf of the Australian Government. The Department’s Secretary is the Scheme Operator.

14.2The Department does things like:

• Implement the Scheme’s legislation and policy.
• Make sure the Scheme operates lawfully.
• Support applicants and their nominees throughout their redress journey.
• Support all stages of redress application processing and ensures applications are finalised as quickly as possible in a trauma-informed way.
• Develop Scheme letters, forms and materials, and looks after the Scheme’s website.
• Conduct research to identify and onboard institutions to inform consideration of applications.
• Provide training and supports Independent Decision Makers to undertake their decision-making obligations.
• Make payments to survivors and invoicing institutions.
• Build awareness of and confidence in the Scheme.[1]
  3. More information about the Scheme is available in the Department’s submission to the inquiry and on the Department’s website.
• The submission includes background on the how the Scheme works and the Department’s role.
• Things might have changed since we heard this evidence. You should check the Scheme’s website for current information.

Performance

14.4The Department told us that they make sure the Scheme is working well by measuring its performance in different ways. For example:

• Strategic success measures, which help the Scheme to track its performance. We heard that these were reviewed and updated because the original targets were ‘not realistic’.[2]
• The Scheme Service Charter.[3]

• The Charter is a document that lists the Scheme’s commitments to supporting survivors through the redress application process.[4] A summary of the charter is available in Appendix G.

• They hold survivor roundtables.[5]

• The Minister for Social Services hosts the roundtables.[6]
• So far, 6 roundtables have been held.[7]
• The next roundtable will be held on 16 October 2024 in Adelaide.[8]
• People who attend roundtables can include survivors and their advocates.[9]
• Survivors can talk about the Scheme’s performance and operational issues at roundtables.[10]
• The number of survivors invited to roundtables is kept low to help people participate in a trauma-informed way.[11]
• We understand that more are planned in 2024, including possibly in regional locations.[12]
  5. The Department publishes information about redress applications and service delivery data on its website every month. This helps people know how many applications have been received and how many have been processed.[13]
  6. Performance measures are also found in the Department’s annual report. For example, in 2022–23:

• The Scheme met its target to notify 75% of survivors about their redress outcome within 6 months of all required information being received.
• The Scheme met its target whereby participating institutions should cover 95% of applications in progress.[14]
  7. The Department conducted a survey on survivor experiences. While results showed improved perceptions, only a small number of surveys (42 out of 422) were returned.[15]
  8. We heard that the Department tries to be flexible. If a support service says that something is needed for a client, then ‘we will make the necessary arrangements… if there are specific matters, we would be very keen to take those on’.[16]

Redress applications

14.9We asked the Department a lot of questions about redress applications during the inquiry. We wanted to know:

• Whether the Department processes applications in a timely way.
• How the Department decides whether people are eligible for redress.
  10. The Department’s job is to receive and process redress applications. They acknowledged that for many survivors, ‘making an application to the Scheme is a traumatic exercise’.[17]
  11. The Department told us that:
• They receive lots of applications each month.[18]

• As of 9 August 2024, the Scheme has received 46 280 applications in total.[19]The Department has told 15 911 people about the outcome of their application, and 14 674 applications have been finalised.[20] Finalised means the Scheme has decided whether a person who applied for redress is eligible or ineligible, and a person has accepted or declined their offer for redress.[21]
• The rate of applications increased from March 2022 when the requirement to provide a statutory declaration as part of the application form was removed, and people could submit applications online through myGov.[22]
• They have improved the application form to help make applying for redress easier.[23]

• About 38% of redress applications are from First Nations people.[24]
• About 36% of redress applications are from people with disability.[25]
• 19.2% of redress applications are looked after by an active nominee.[26] A nominee is someone who can act on a survivor’s behalf.
• Most applications name more than one institution. As of August 2024:

• 29% of redress applications named one institution.
• 29% named two institutions.
• 42% named three or more institutions.[27]
  12. As of August 2024, the Department said 6811 applications were on hold.[28] The Department told us that applications can be put on hold for many reasons, which include:

• People applying for redress are thinking about civil options.[29]
• People are not ready to continue with their application.[30]
• An institution (or institutions) named in a person’s application have not yet joined the Scheme.[31]
  13. However, the Department noted that they do not ask for reasons and survivors can put their application on hold for any reason.[32]
  14. We asked the Department about how long they take to process redress applications. The Department said they try to process most (75%) applications within six months after the application is received.[33] In practice, it usually takes about 14.9 months for the Department to process an application.[34]
• Applications from First Nations survivors are usually processed in 12.9 months.[35]This is quicker than the typical 14.3 months taken to process applications from people who identify as living with disability.[36]
• In March 2023, the Department said the longest time spent by applications at the stage where they can be progressed to an Independent Decision Maker was 362 days.[37]
  15. We asked the Department about why some people are found to be ineligible for redress. The Department said the most common reasons were:
• No participating institution(s) is/are responsible.
• Abuse did not occur when they were a child (under 18 years).
• Abuse did not occur in a participating institution.
• All instances of abuse were 'exposure' abuse and were perpetrated by a child.
• The applicant was not sexually abused.
• Other.[38]

Proof of identity

14.16The Department told us that:

• The standard of proof for people applying for redress to confirm their identity has not changed or become harder since the Scheme began.[39]
• They are looking at options for people who have difficulty with the identification process.[40]

Sporting organisations

14.17Some sporting organisations had complex structures and governance arrangements. There could be uncertainty about the status of some former sporting organisations. Sometimes an organisation could have ceased and become defunct.

• The Scheme has a Governance Board, comprised of ministers from the Australian Government (Commonwealth) and the states and territories.
• In December 2021, the Board decided not to expand Funder of Last Resort provisions to defunct sporting organisations ‘if a senior related sporting body with the means to join’ the Scheme also exists (but case-by-case exceptions could be made).[41]
  18. We asked the Department about the Board’s decision relating to sporting organisations. The Department told us that:
• As of 9 August 2024, the Scheme has received 93 applications naming sporting institutions that are not able to progress because the institution is either defunct or unable to financially join the Scheme.
• An Independent Decision Maker cannot determine an applicant’s claim for redress if the institution named in their application is not participating in the Scheme. As a result, applicants may decide to place their application on hold.[42]
  19. Many redress applications name three or more institutions. We also heard:
• Some applicants have chosen to finalise their redress application – and receive redress from institutions that are participating – without waiting for a sports institution to join the Scheme.
• The Scheme regularly engages with major sporting bodies. The relationships built with sporting bodies through this engagement has ‘resulted in most sporting hierarchy bodies providing advice and support to clubs that are defunct or unable to financially join the Scheme rather than taking on a representative role.’[43]
  20. The Minister for Social Services and the Minister for Aged Care and Sport:
• Issued a joint media release in August 2023 noting new sporting institutions had recently joined the Scheme and encouraging others to participate.
• In December 2023, the both ministers wrote to major national sporting bodies who represent defunct clubs, or those financially unable to participate in the Scheme within their report.
• Most sporting bodies have since stated their support for the Scheme but advised they do not wish to represent clubs in their sport that are not able to join.[44]

Communication

14.21We asked the Department about how they communicate with people wanting to access the Scheme.

14.22The Department told us that:

• They are aware that First Nations people and people with disability can face barriers accessing redress.[45]
• Making sure the Scheme is accessible for First Nations people and people with disability is important.[46]
• They have dedicated staff who provide culturally safe phone contact with First Nations people.[47]
• People with disability can self-identify when applying for redress.[48]
• People applying for redress can use the National Relay Service and Teletype services.[49]
• The Scheme’s website includes AUSLAN videos and Easy Read guides.[50]
• They have made material available to First Nations people in language, such as radio pieces.[51]
  23. The Department emphasised the option of using MyGov for redress applications. MyGov gives individuals access to various government services on the Internet. The Department said:
• ‘MyGov meets all of the disability accessibility requirements’.
• ‘It is important that we try to push people to that to ensure that that’s one way that we know that they can access with all the disability requirements’.[52]
  24. More generally, we heard that communication is ‘a very challenging process’ for the Department to get right.[53] For example:
• While some survivors may like to talk, others ‘don’t want anything to do with us’.[54]
• Working with survivors and their advocates is ‘a privilege of the job’ and the Department does not expect to be thanked for its work.

Raising awareness of the Scheme

14.25The Department has worked with the National Indigenous Australian Agency, state and territory governments, Redress Support Services, and other peak and community organisations to help raise awareness about redress.

• They engage with people through written correspondence, communications materials, meetings, presentations and by attending stakeholder events.
• The Scheme attends community events to talk to services to promote the Scheme.
• The Department has provided more funding to Redress Support Services to engage with communities through in-person workshops.[55]

Outcome Determination Calls

14.26We heard about times when the Department called redress applicants without notice to tell them of the outcome of their application. This evidence is discussed in more detail in Chapter 5.

14.27The Department told us that they undertook a review of their call procedures in late 2021. Following this review and since February 2022, Scheme staff now contact applicants according to their individual preferences and will send a text message to the applicant prior to calling.[56]

14.28In August 2024, the Department undertook to ‘review the current practice to ensure that the call setup is appropriate and meets expectations for a trauma informed approach.’[57]

Transparency

14.29We asked the Department about the information they share with people accessing the Scheme. Transparency is important so that people can understand why, or why they have not, been able to get redress.

14.30The Department said they are improving the Scheme’s transparency so that survivors can be more informed about redress decisions.[58]

14.31The Department told us that:

• They try to make sure redress decisions are consistent.[59]
• People can ask for their redress decision to be reviewed if they have not accepted their offer.[60]
  32. People who have accepted or rejected their redress offer cannot have their offer reviewed because they have been finalised.[61]
  33. The Department said they also receive and respond to Freedom of Information requests.[62]
• The Department said the requests vary.
• For example, some requests come from survivors who want a copy of their redress application returned, or to be provided to a redress support service.[63]

Source: Department of Social Services, Supplementary Submission 9.19, response IQ24-000184.

Assessment framework policy guidelines

14.34The Department uses guidelines to assess redress applications.[64] The guidelines are called the Assessment Framework Policy Guidelines.

• The guidelines help the Department to decide whether a survivor should get redress, and how much.
• The guidelines are not publicly available.[65]
  35. We made several requests to the Department to show us a copy of the guidelines so that the Committee could learn more about how redress applications are processed.
• The Minister for Social Services said she would not share the guidelines with the Committee because doing so ‘would be contrary to the public interest’[66] because the guidelines support Scheme decision makers to make decisions according to the low evidentiary threshold set out in the Redress Act.[67]
  • The Minister said that making the guidelines public would allow ‘disingenuous applicants to game the system’ and undermine the integrity of the Scheme.[68]
• Committee members were eventually allowed to inspect the guidelines on a confidential basis.

Medical procedures

14.36We asked the Department about whether virginity testing is recognised by the Scheme as a medical procedure. The Department said they were getting advice.[69]

14.37At a public hearing, the Department agreed that denying a redress application because it was a medical procedure is not trauma informed.[70]

• The Department later responded by saying that eligibility for redress is determined on a ‘case-by-case basis’.[71] This is discussed in more detail in Chapters 4 and 5.
  38. We also asked the Department about a 2022 report by Professor Eleanor Milligan, a medical ethicist, from Griffith University.
• The Second Year Review of the Scheme recommended the Australian Government review the guidance about child sexual abuse in medical settings to help Independent Decision Makers.
• The Department then engaged a medical ethicist to review this guidance, and updated their policy advice about abuse in medical settings (not specific procedures) for Independent Decision Makers in July 2022.
• The Department said: ‘The report does not reflect the joint statement from the United Nations Human Rights Office, office of the High Commissioner, UN Women and the World Health Organization.’
• The Department said the medical ethicist report was not provided to the Minister for Social Services.
• The Abuse in Medical Settings Advice is subordinate to the legislated definition of sexual abuse. As a result, the advice is internal operational guidance for Independent Decision Makers.
• The Department offered to show the Committee the medical ethicist report in private.[72]

Participating institutions

14.39We asked the Department about its work with institutions that participate in the Scheme.

14.40The Department told us that:

• As of 9 August 2024, 184 institutions named in redress applications were in the process of joining the Scheme.[73]

• 75 institutions agreed to join the Scheme and were onboarding.
• 45 institutions agreed to have their name published on the Scheme’s website and listed as an institutions intending to participate in the Scheme.[74]
  41. 53 institutions have also provided ‘words’ for applicants. Scheme staff can use these words if an applicant asks about the status of the institution named in their application joining the Scheme.[75]

• It usually takes 6 months for an institution to join the Scheme after being contacted by the Department.[76]
• When an institution is named in an institution, the Department’s role is to find the right institution. This includes:

• Searching registers of charities and organisations.
• Library archives.
• Some cases are complex. While appearing to be the same organisation, the responsible institution could be different from what the application named.[77]
  42. Institutions who do not join the Scheme when they are asked to can be penalised. For example:

• They cannot receive money from the Australian Government for grants.
• They are publicly named for not joining the Scheme.
• They can lose their status as a charity.[78]
• The Department aims to tells applicants when an institution named in their application joins the Scheme, or if an institution they named is unable to join the Scheme.[79]
  43. However, while waiting for the institution to decide, the Department said that their ability to give updates is limited by legislation.
• A public interest certificate could permit some disclosures. This option is not used.
• The Department is concerned that ‘without institutions joining the Scheme, we don’t have a Scheme’.
• They maintain a ‘very delicate balancing act’ during confidential negotiations with institutions.
• The confidentiality and silence during this process is based on laws around the Scheme’s protected information.[80]
  44. The Department told us that:
• They can give people their redress payments in instalments.[81]
• The Australian Government pays the initial costs for paying redress. Institutions then reimburse the Australian Government. Institutions that pay the Australian Government late need to pay a late penalty.[82]
• As of 28 August 2024, institutions owe the Australian Government $97.3 million. This included $80.5 million relating to invoices for which payment is not yet due.[83]
• Occasionally, an institution will ask for a redress decision to be reviewed. This might result in an institution’s financial liability being waived.[84]

Source: Department of Social Services, Supplementary Submission 9.23, response IQ24-000166.

14.45If institutions desire, they can share information about their reasons for not participating in the National Redress Scheme.

• The Department encourages institutions to share their reasons.
• However, until an institution decides to join the Scheme, the Department needs the institution’s consent to share information ‘about the extent to which we’re working with them’.[85]

Direct personal responses

14.46A direct personal response is when a person who applied for redress gets an apology from the institution (or institutions) for the harm they caused. This is discussed in more detail in Chapter 3.

14.47A direct personal response is one of three components of redress. The other components are financial payments and access to counselling.[86]

14.48The Department told us that:

• Many people do not take the option to get a direct personal response.[87]
• They are trialling a new form of direct personal response called soft outreach.[88] This trial will run for 6 months with a select group of survivors.[89]
  49. The Department has created a direct personal response Information and Support Service for survivors.[90]

Reviews of redress decisions

14.50Chapter 3 discussed the perspectives of survivors and support services who ask for redress decisions to be reviewed.

14.51However, there is some complexity within the meaning of review.

• The Department counts some requests are deemed as a ‘revocation’. This is an option where the request for review is asking for new information to be considered and an entirely new decision.[91]
• In April 2023, we heard that there had been 133 revocations since the Scheme started.[92] These are separated from data about reviews.[93]
• More recently, in April 2024, the Department said that they had created an ‘enhanced’ review process. That suggests some practices have possibly changed since we received evidence early in this inquiry.[94]
• As at 27 September 2024, the Department advised that there have been 392 revocation requests, with 104 requests for revocation upheld (not granted to the applicant).[95]
  52. The Department initially said that they knew of one (1) instance where the payment outcome was decreased after a review was because of an error in the assessment of a prior payment in the initial determination. During the review, the error was fixed. The applicant did not have to pay any debt because of this.[96]
  53. In April 2023, clarified advice said that redress payment offered to a survivor had been reduced on 8 occasions following a review.[97]
  54. The Scheme has a governance board. The Department said that in October 2022, the board agreed survivors should be ‘no worse off’ from a review. The Department added that implementation included ‘working through’ legislative arrangements.[98]
• We asked the Department whether a survivor could have the option to withdraw their request for a review if the revised result could be worse than the original decision.
• The Department advised: ‘In the event that we think that could potentially be an outcome, we would look at what we can do, knowing what is coming up potentially with the legislation, to do what you said and not have that process take place until the legislation were in place’.
• We asked for a clarification around what will be implemented.
• The Department said that a ‘no worse off provision will be coming in at some stage’.[99]
  55. We suggested to the Department that language on the Scheme’s website about outcomes being reduced could be read as a threat and did not seem trauma informed.
• The Department disagreed about anything being a threat and said it is about ‘ensuring that an applicant makes an informed choice’.
• The Department agreed to review the language ‘as a matter of priority’ but subject to ‘the legislation we’re currently working under’.[100]
  56. In July 2024, on the Scheme’s website, the form survivors use to request a review says:
• A survivor’s redress payment offer may be reduced.
• Their eligibility for redress could change.

Source: www.nationalredress.gov.au, viewed in July 2024.

Table 14.4Offers declined, withdrawn applications and requests for review

Source: Department of Social Services, Supplementary Submission 9.8, response, IQ23-000141 and IQ23-000150; Supplementary Submission 9.32, response IQ24-000249.

Complaints

14.57We asked the Department about how they deal with complaints about the Scheme.

14.58The Department told us that:

• They encourage feedback and complaints to improve the Scheme.[102]
• People can complain by:

• Sending a letters, emails, calling the Scheme.
• Contacting Ministers and Members of Parliament.[103]

• They try to resolve complaints within 28 days.[104]
• They developed a Complaint Framework to help make sure they have a consistent approach to handling complaints.[105]
  59. The Department has more information about making a complaint on its website nationalredress.gov.au[106]
  60. As discussed in Chapter 3, complaint data is unavailable prior to 1 July 2022.
• Since 1 July 2022, the Scheme has received 932 complaints from individuals.[107]
• Among this number, 272 were found substantiated or partially substantiated. 902 complaints have been investigated and responded to, with 30 still being investigated.[108]
• The Scheme aims to resolve complaints within 28 days, although ‘complex matters may take longer’.[109]
  61. The ‘most common’ complaints related to:
• Applications (timeframes, eligibility and processes).
• Service (responsiveness, phone communication and redress support services).
• Institutions (non-participating, request for information process and direct personal response).[110]

Redress support services

14.62The Department told us:

• There are 45 redress support services to support people applying for redress.[111]

• There are 12 redress support services specifically for First Nations people.[112]
• There are redress support services across each state and territory, and in regional, rural and remote areas.[113]

• People can access redress support services before and while applying for redress.[114]
• Redress support services are funded to provide individual or group counselling and support to survivors throughout the redress process, including through face-to-face, telephone, video and online settings.[115]
• Redress support services can meet with the Department regularly.[116]
• Some redress support services act as a nominee for some people applying for redress.[117]
  63. We asked the Department about the performance of redress support services. The Department said that the applications from people who used a redress support services were ‘more complete, require less follow up and are easier and faster to progress.’[118]
  64. The Department also said that people who used a redress support service generally received higher payments.[119]

Tuart Place

14.65We heard evidence from Tuart Place, a support service in Western Australia, regarding their access to funding.

• Tuart Place said that they had been denied federal government funding, something they described as ‘outrageous’.
• They had appealed and made complaints about decisions.
• The barrier appears to be connections to the Christian Brothers, who have donated money to Tuart Place.
• The building Tuart Place operates from is owned by Edmund Rice Community Services, who charge a ‘peppercorn rent’ in recognition for healing and justice for past events. This charity has a link to the Christian Brothers.[120]
  66. We asked the Department whether Tuart Place’s link to the Christian Brothers explains why funding cannot be given. The Department advised:
• That is ‘broadly the reason’ and, instead, money is given to knowmore who pass it on to Tuart Place.
• The Department’s concern is the survivor community does not want government money going to a service that also takes money from religious organisations.
• We asked about the extent of Tuart Place’s connection to the Christian Brothers.
• The Department said that ‘among other things’, Tuart Place have statements on their website about ‘receiving funding from the Christian Brothers’.[121]

Scheme staffing

14.67We asked the Department about the staff who work on redress.

14.68The Department said it is trying to manage the increase in in applications by:

• Increasing the number of Independent Decision Makers.
• Recruitment activities to bring on more staff.
• Reviewing the application process.[122]
  69. In April 2024, the Department told us that:
• There are 54 people who consider applications for redress, make decisions and conduct reviews.[123] These people are called Independent Decision Makers.
• The Department set up a legal help desk for Independent Decision Makers so that they can ask questions about things they are not sure about.[124]
• Independent Decision Markers consider applications on a case-by-case basis.[125]
  70. As of August 2023, the Department told us that:
• There were about 456 people working for the Scheme
  • 370 of these staff were public service employees
  • 86 were contractors.[126]
• They are always recruiting and training staff.[127]
  71. The Department said that staff usually spend about a year (386 days) in a service delivery role.[128] Staff turnover for the last three financial years was:
• 38% in 2021–22.
• 31% in 2022–23.
• 29% in 2023–24.[129]
  72. The Department also said that staff wellbeing is important. Staff have access to wellbeing support to help risk their risk of experiencing vicarious trauma.[130]
  73. Table 14.4 shows the full-time equivalent (FTE) staff for the 2020–21, 2021–22, 2022–23 and 2023–24 financial years.

Source: Department of Social Services, Supplementary Submission 9.24, response IQ24-000187.

14.74The Department said that if resources are insufficient, they can ‘advise government’ and ‘seek additional resourcing’.[133]

Protected information

14.75The Department told us:

• Protected information provisions aim to make sure that the privacy of people applying for redress is protected.[134]
• Protected information includes things like:

• Redress applications.
• A response to a request for information.
• Information about whether a redress offer has been made.[135]

• Protected information can only be shared in special circumstances. For example, for:

• Law enforcement.
• Safety and wellbeing of children.
• Preventing or lessening serious threat to a person’s life, health or safety.[136]
  76. Where a redress application names multiple institutions, the Department clarified that those institutions only see what is relevant to them. For example, Institution A does not see information about Institutions B or C.[137]
  77. We asked the Department about how often unauthorised disclosures of protected information are reported to the Department.

• ‘Unauthorised disclosures’ means times that information that should be secret is wrongly shared with other people. Breaches could result in fines or imprisonment.
• The Department told us they get questions about possible or suspected authorised disclosures of protected information ‘on an irregular basis’.[138]
• The Department said they are not aware of any prosecutions for unauthorised disclosures of protected information.[139]
• The Australian Federal Police (AFP) and the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions have the power to enforce breaches of the protected information provisions. The Scheme has not referred any matters to the AFP.[140]

Other issues discussed in the Department’s evidence

14.78The Department also told us about other general issues relating to the Scheme, including:

• Changes to the law

• The Parliament changed the law so that from November 2023 former child migrants who were not Australian citizens or permanent residents at the time they applied for redress.[141]

• The end of the Scheme

• The Scheme is due to end on 30 June 2028.
• The Department needs to receive all applications to the Scheme by 30 June 2027. This means there is one year to process the rest of the redress applications.[142]
• The Department told us:

‒They are focused on processing applications.[143]

‒The number of applications being received is increasing.[144]

‒They are processing applications as quickly as they can.[145]

• Nominees

• During the inquiry, people told us that nominees are sometimes excluded from phone calls between redress applicants and Scheme staff, especially about applications from people with disability.
• The Department said they were aware of this, and that nominees should be included in calls and involved.[146]
• The Department also told us that sometimes the applicant does not want the nominee on the call.[147]

• Special exemptions given to survivors with serious criminal convictions

• Those exemptions are usually considered by decision makers at a high level.
• The key question is whether giving redress would ‘adversely affect the reputation of the Scheme’.[148]

• Permanent stays

• We asked the Department about whether they keep any data on permanent stay applications.
• The Department said they usually find out about permanent stays through community advocates.[149]
  79. ACS Mutual

• We asked the Department about why ACS Mutual left the Scheme.

• ACS Mutual stopped participating in the Scheme from 30 June 2023.[150] This meant that the many institutions that ACS Mutual represented also stopped participating in the Scheme.
• The Department said that ACS Mutual indicated it was unable to meet the requirement that participating institutions have the financial capacity to remain in the Scheme.[151]
• ACS Mutual was informed that it remains responsible for costs relating to active redress applications.[152]
• New redress applications naming former ACS Mutual organisations will continue to be managed in accordance with the Scheme’s procedures, including public naming and consequences for failing to join the Scheme.[153]
• ACS Mutual told us that when the requirement for survivors to complete a statutory declaration as part of their redress application was removed, there was an ‘immediate and significance increase’ redress applications made against their clients. They said that because of this, they lost reinsurance and could no longer meet the Scheme’s financial capacity requirement.[154]

• Yeshivah Centre

• We asked the Department about the Yeshivah Centre, which has not joined the Scheme.
• The Department said the Yeshivah Centre was not able to join the Scheme because of financial reasons.[155]
• The Department are looking at how the Yeshivah Centre can partly participate in the Scheme under the expanded Funder of Last Resort provisions.[156]
• This means that the Yeshivah Centre might be able to respond to requests for information and provide direct personal responses.[157]

• Fraud

• Occasionally the Department may find signs of fraud among redress applications.
• In May 2024, we heard that the Department has 21 matters at ‘various stages of investigation’.[158]

Footnotes

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

[2]Emma Kate McGuirk, Department of Social Services, Committee Hansard, 9 March 2023, p. 5.

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

[4]National Redress Scheme, Service Charter for your National Redress Scheme, accessed 1 July 2024, www.nationalredress.gov.au/applying/charter

[5]Letitia Hope, Department of Social Services, Committee Hansard, 8 April 2024, p. 11.

[6]National Redress Scheme, Survivor Roundtable, www.nationalredress.gov.au/about/survivor-roundtable, viewed 30 September 2024.

[7]Department of Social Services, Supplementary Submission 9.19, response IQ24-000192.

[8]Department of Social Services, Supplementary Submission 9.19, response IQ24-000192.

[9]John Riley, Department of Social Services, Committee Hansard, 20 October 2023, p. 27.

[10]National Redress Scheme, Survivor Roundtable, www.nationalredress.gov.au/about/survivor-roundtable, accessed 30 September 2024.

[11]Department of Social Services, Submission 9.7, p. 1.

[12]Ingrid Penberthy, Department of Social Services, Committee Hansard, 8 April 2024, p. 12.

[13]Mark Harrigan, Department of Social Services, Committee Hansard, 8 April 2024, pp. 15–16.

[14]Department of Social Services, Annual Report 2022–23, p. 57.

[15]Department of Social Services, Strategic Success Measures, December 2023.

[16]John Riley, Department of Social Services, Committee Hansard, 9 March 2023, p. 8.

[17]John Riley, Department of Social Services, Committee Hansard, 20 October 2023, p. 29.

[18]Letitia Hope, Department of Social Services, Committee Hansard, 8 April 2024, p. 10. See also: Department of Social Services, Submission 9, p. 2; Letitia Hope, Department of Social Services, Committee Hansard, Canberra, 20 October 2023, p. 27.

[19]Department of Social Services, Supplementary Submission 9.23, response IQ24-000173.

[20]National Redress Scheme, www.nationalredress.gov.au/about/updates/1866

[21]National Redress Scheme, www.nationalredress.gov.au/about/updates/1866

[22]Department of Social Services, Supplementary Submission 9.2, p. 1. See also: Department of Social Services, Supplementary Submission 9.8, response IQ23-000140.

[23]Letitia Hope, Department of Social Services, Committee Hansard, 8 April 2024, p. 11.

[24]Department of Social Services, Supplementary Submission 9.8, response IQ23-000154.

[25]Department of Social Services, Supplementary Submission 9.8, response IQ23-000154.

[26]Department of Social Services, Submission 9.8, IQ23-000148.

[27]Department of Social Services, Submission 9.19, IQ24-000174.

[28]Department of Social Services, Supplementary Submission 19.24, response IQ24-000186.

[29]Emma Kate McGuirk, Department of Social Services, Committee Hansard, 9 March 2023, p. 2. See also: Justine Curnow, Department of Social Services, Committee Hansard, 20 October 2023, p. 28.

[30]Emma Kate McGuirk, Department of Social Services, Committee Hansard, 9 March 2023, p. 2. See also: Justine Curnow, Department of Social Services, Committee Hansard, 20 October 2023, p. 28.

[31]John Riley, Department of Social Services, Committee Hansard, 20 October 2023, p. 32.

[32]Emma Kate McGuirk, Department of Social Services, Committee Hansard, 9 March 2023, p. 2.

[33]Emma Kate McGuirk, Department of Social Services, Committee Hansard, 9 March 2023, p. 11.

[34]Department of Social Services, Supplementary Submission 9.23, response IQ24-000175.

[35]Department of Social Services, Supplementary Submission 9.11, p. 2.

[36]Department of Social Services, Supplementary Submission 9.11, p. 2.

[37]Department of Social Services, Supplementary Submission 9.1, IQ23-000019.

[38]Department of Social Services, Supplementary Submission 9.8, IQ23-000130.

[39]Department of Social Services, Supplementary Submission 9.9, response IQ23-000174.

[40]Sarah Peascod, Department of Social Services, Committee Hansard, 20 October 2023, p. 42.

[41]Department of Social Services, Submission 9.23, response IQ24-000161.

[42]Department of Social Services, Submission 9.23, response IQ24-000161.

[43]Department of Social Services, Submission 9.23, response IQ24-000161.

[44]Department of Social Services, Submission 9.23, response IQ24-000161.

[45]Department of Social Services, Submission 9.2, p. 1.

[46]Ray Griggs, Department of Social Services, Committee Hansard, 9 March 2023, p. 1. See also: Department of Social Services, Supplementary Submission 9.2, p. 1.

[47]Department of Social Services, Supplementary Submission 9.2, p. 1.

[48]Emma Kate McGuirk, Department of Social Services, Committee Hansard, 9 March 2023, p. 8.

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

[50]Department of Social Services, Submission 9, p. 5; John Riley, Department of Social Services, Committee Hansard, 9 March 2023, p. 9.

[51]Letitia Hope, Department of Social Services, Committee Hansard, 8 April 2024, p. 12. See also: Department of Social Services, Submission 9, p. 4; Emma Kate McGuirk, Department of Social Services, Committee Hansard, 9 March 2023, p. 7.

[52]Emma Kate McGuirk, Department of Social Services, Committee Hansard, 9 March 2023, p.9.

[53]John Riley, Department of Social Services, Committee Hansard, 20 October 2023, p. 29.

[54]John Riley, Department of Social Services, Committee Hansard, 20 October 2023, p. 29.

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

[56]Department of Social Services, Supplementary Submission 9.23, response IQ24-000160.

[57]Department of Social Services, Supplementary Submission 9.23, response IQ24-000160.

[58]John Riley, Department of Social Services, Committee Hansard, 8 April 2024, p. 16.

[59]Bruce Young, Department of Social Services, Committee Hansard, 8 April 2024, p. 17.

[60]John Riley, Department of Social Services, Committee Hansard, Canberra, 8 April 2024, p. 16.

[61]John Riley, Department of Social Services, Committee Hansard, Canberra, 8 April 2024, p. 16.

[62]Department of Social Services, Submission 9.8, response IQ23-000153.

[63]Department of Social Services, Submission 9, p. 8.

[64]Emma Kate McGuirk, Department of Social Services, Committee Hansard, 12 April 2023, pp. 22–23. See also: Department of Social Services, Supplementary Submission 9.5, response IQ23-000051.

[65]Emma Kate McGuirk, Department of Social Services, Committee Hansard, 12 April 2023, pp. 22–23. See also: Department of Social Services, Supplementary Submission 9.5, response IQ23-000051.

[66]Department of Social Services, Supplementary Submission 9.8, response IQ23-000143.

[67]Letter dated 27 March 2024 from the Minister for Social Services, additional document 2.

[68]Letter dated 27 March 2024 from the Minister for Social Services, additional document 2.

[69]Letitia Hope, Department of Social Services, Committee Hansard, 20 October 2023, p. 32.

[70]Letitia Hope, Department of Social Services, Committee Hansard, 20 October 2023, p. 32.

[71]Department of Social Services, Supplementary Submission 9.8, response IQ23-000134.

[72]Department of Social Services, Supplementary Submission 9.23, response IQ24-000156.

[73]Department of Social Services, Supplementary Submission 9.19, response IQ24-000163.

[74]Department of Social Services, Supplementary Submission 9.19, response IQ24-000163.

[75]Department of Social Services, Supplementary Submission 9.19, response IQ24-000163.

[76]John Riley, Department of Social Services, Committee Hansard, 12 April 2023, p. 16.

[77]John Riley, Department of Social Services, Committee Hansard, 12 April 2023, p. 17.

[78]Emma Kate McGuirk, Department of Social Services, Committee Hansard, 12 April 2023, p. 15.

[79]Department of Social Services, Supplementary Submission 9.5, response IQ23-000044.

[80]Emma Kate McGuirk, Department of Social Services, Committee Hansard, 12 April 2023, pp. 17-18.

[81]Emma Kate McGuirk, Department of Social Services, Committee Hansard, 9 March 2023, p. 4.

[82]Department of Social Services, Supplementary Submission 9.8, response IQ23-000128.

[83]Department of Social Services, Supplementary Submission 9.23, response IQ24-000166.

[84]John Riley, Department of Social Services, Committee Hansard, 8 April 2024, p. 17.

[85]Emma Kate McGuirk, Department of Social Services, Committee Hansard, 12 April 2023, p. 15.

[86]National Redress Scheme, Direct personal response, www.nationalredress.gov.au/applying/what-can-you-apply/direct-personal-response, viewed 30 September 2024.

[87]John Riley, Department of Social Services, Committee Hansard, 8 April 2024, p. 14.

[88]Ingrid Penberthy, Department of Social Services, Committee Hansard, 8 April 2024, p. 10.

[89]National Redress Scheme, National Redress Scheme – Update 26 March 2024, accessed 1 July 2024, www.nationalredress.gov.au/about/updates/1891

[90]John Riley, Department of Social Services, Committee Hansard, 20 October 2023, p. 42.

[91]Emma Kate McGuirk, Department of Social Services, Committee Hansard, 12 April 2023, p. 4.

[92]Department of Social Services, Supplementary Submission 9.1, response IQ23-000018.

[93]Emma Kate McGuirk, Department of Social Services, Committee Hansard, 12 April 2023, p. 22.

[94]John Riley, Department of Social Services, Committee Hansard, 8 April 2024, p. 17.

[95]Department of Social Services, Supplementary Submission 9.34, response IQ24-000249.

[96]Department of Social Services, Supplementary Submission 9.13, response IQ24-000021. See also: Emma Kate McGuirk, Department of Social Services, Committee Hansard, 9 March 2023, p. 10.

[97]Department of Social Services, Supplementary Submission 9.1, response IQ23-000018.

[98]Emma Kate McGuirk, Department of Social Services, Committee Hansard, 9 March 2023, p. 4.

[99]Emma Kate McGuirk, Department of Social Services, Committee Hansard, 9 March 2023, p. 10.

[100]Emma Kate McGuirk, Department of Social Services, Committee Hansard, 12 April 2023, p. 22.

[101]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.

[102]Department of Social Services, Supplementary Submission 9.8, response IQ23-000147.

[103]Department of Social Services, Supplementary Submission 9.8, response IQ23-000147.

[104]Department of Social Services, Supplementary Submission 9.8, response IQ23-000147; Department of Social Services, Supplementary Submission 9.19, response IQ24-000179.

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

[106]Department of Social Services, Supplementary Submission 9.8, response IQ23-000147.

[107]Department of Social Services, Supplementary Submission 9.19, response IQ24-000179. Data for period 1 July 2022 to 26 August 2024.

[108]Department of Social Services, Supplementary Submission 9.19, response IQ24-000179. Data for period 1 July 2022 to 26 August 2024.

[109]Department of Social Services, Supplementary Submission 9.8, response IQ23-000147. See also: Department of Social Services, Supplementary Submission 9.19, response IQ24-000179.

[110]Department of Social Services, Supplementary Submission 9.19, response IQ24-000179.

[111]John Riley, Department of Social Services, Committee Hansard, 20 October 2023, p. 30.

[112]Bruce Young, Department of Social Services, Committee Hansard, 8 April 2024, p. 12. See also: Department of Social Services, Submission 9.2, p. 2.

[113]Department of Social Services, Submission 9.2, p. 1.

[114]Emma Kate McGuirk, Department of Social Services, Committee Hansard, 9 March 2023, p. 6. See also: Department of Social Services, Submission 9, pp. 5–6.

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

[116]John Riley, Department of Social Services, Committee Hansard, 20 October 2023, p. 30.

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

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

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

[120]Dr Philippa White, Tuart Place, Committee Hansard, 12 April 2023, p. 10; Susy Vaughan, Tuart Place, Committee Hansard, 12 April 2023, p. 11.

[121]John Riley, Department of Social Services, Committee Hansard, 12 April 2023, p. 24.

[122]Department of Social Services, Supplementary Submission 9.11, p. 6.

[123]Bruce Young, Department of Social Services, Committee Hansard, 8 April 2024, p. 17.

[124]Bruce Young, Department of Social Services, Committee Hansard, 8 April 2024, p. 17.

[125]Department of Social Services, Supplementary Submission 9.8, response IQ23-000134.

[126]Department of Social Services, Supplementary Submission 9.23, response IQ23-000167.

[127]Justine Curnow, Department of Social Services, Committee Hansard, 20 October 2023, p. 37.

[128]Department of Social Services, Supplementary Submission, 9.24, response IQ24-000191.

[129]Department of Social Services, Supplementary Submission 9.23, response IQ24-000167.

[130]Department of Social Services, Supplementary Submission 9.11, response IQ23-000167.

[131]Average staffing level for Australian Public Service staff.

[132]Average number of contractors, excluding Independent Decision Makers. Based on all contractor equally one full time equivalent.

[133]Ray Griggs, Department of Social Services, Committee Hansard, 9 March 2023, p. 4.

[134]Department of Social Services, Supplementary Submission 9.2, p. 2.

[135]Department of Social Services, Submission 9, p. 8.

[136]Department of Social Services, Supplementary Submission 9.2, p. 2.

[137]John Riley, Department of Social Services, Committee Hansard, 12 April 2024, p. 18.

[138]Department of Social Services, Supplementary Submission 9.8, response IQ23-000152; Supplementary Submission 9.24, response IQ24-000183.

[139]Department of Social Services, Supplementary Submission 9.8, response IQ23-000152; Supplementary Submission 9.24, response IQ24-000183.

[140]Department of Social Services, Supplementary Submission 9.24, response IQ24-000183.

[141]Letitia Hope, Department of Social Services, Committee Hansard, 8 April 2024, p. 11.

[142]Sarah Peascod, Department of Social Services, Committee Hansard, 20 October 2023, p. 39.

[143]Mark Harrigan, Department of Social Services, Committee Hansard, 8 April 2024, p. 20.

[144]Mark Harrigan, Department of Social Services, Committee Hansard, 8 April 2024, p. 21.

[145]Mark Harrigan, Department of Social Services, Committee Hansard, 8 April 2024, p. 20.

[146]Sarah Peascod, Department of Social Services, Committee Hansard, 20 October 2023, p. 36.

[147]Sarah Peascod, Department of Social Services, Committee Hansard, 20 October 2023, p. 36.

[148]John Riley, Department of Social Services, Committee Hansard, 20 October 2023, p. 33.

[149]John Riley, Department of Social Services, Committee Hansard, 12 April 2023, p. 18.

[150]ACS Mutual Ltd, Submission 32, p. 1.

[151]Department of Social Services, Supplementary Submission 9.7, pp. 1–2.

[152]Department of Social Services, Supplementary Submission 9.7, p. 2. See also: ACS Mutual Ltd, Submission 32, p. 2.

[153]Department of Social Services, Supplementary Submission 9.7, p. 2.

[154]ACS Mutual Ltd, Submission 32, p. 1.

[155]Department of Social Services, Supplementary Submission 9.1, response IQ23-000020.

[156]Department of Social Services, Supplementary Submission 9.1, response IQ23-000020.

[157]Department of Social Services, Supplementary Submission 9.1, response IQ23-000020.

[158]Department of Social Services, Supplementary Submission 9.16, p. 2.