Chapter 2 - The National Redress Scheme

The National Redress Scheme

Summary

What does this chapter talk about?

Our inquiry.
How the National Redress Scheme works.
Who can receive redress.

What did we hear?

Redress is complicated.
Lots of survivors have asked for redress.

We/our/us refers to:

The Joint Standing Committee on Implementation of the National Redress Scheme.
We inquired into the National Redress Scheme.

What is the Committee’s role?

2.1The Committee’s job is to:

Oversee (or watch and check) whether the National Redress Scheme (the Scheme) is working properly.
Hear about what has happened when survivors asked for redress.
Tell the Australian Parliament how the Scheme could be improved.
1. The Committee has 8 members:
The members are politicians elected to the Australian Parliament (the Senate and the House of Representatives).
Their names are listed near the front of this report.
1. The Committee does its work on redress by:
Receiving information (submissions and documents).
Asking questions at public hearings.
Making recommendations to the Australian Parliament.
1. The Committee’s website has more information: www.aph.gov.au/redress47

What happened during the inquiry?

2.5The Committee agreed upon the terms of reference and the inquiry started on 28November 2022. The terms of reference say which topics the Committee focused on during the inquiry. Topics included:

First Nations people and redress.
People with disability and redress.
Redress support services and legal advice.
1. The terms of reference can be found at the back of the report. Also at the back of the report, there are lists of the submissions received and the witnesses who came to speak at public hearings. This information is also available on the Committee’s website.
2. The Committee invited written submissions responding to the terms of reference. Written submissions were due on 27 February 2023; however, the Committee continued to receive submissions after this date until 2 September 2024.
3. Several public hearings were held, where witnesses (including survivors) were invited to talk about whether the Scheme is working properly and the topics listed in the terms of reference.

Writing a report about redress

2.9When writing this report, Committee members looked at all the evidence in written submissions and the things witnesses said at public hearings.

2.10This report talks about what the Committee heard during the inquiry process. The report is divided into chapters that discuss the evidence received.

2.11The Committee heard that there are many problems, frustrations and things that could be changed. This evidence helped the Committee to decide what this report should recommend.

2.12There are recommendations listed near the front of the report. This is how the Australian Parliament knows what the Committee would like to be changed about the Scheme.

2.13The completion of this report means that the inquiry has finished.

Next steps

2.14Now that the report is finished:

A copy is presented to the Australian Parliament.
The Australian Government considers (or thinks about) the Committee’s recommendations and decides whether to make the changes recommended. The Committee continues its work and oversight of the Scheme.
The Australian Government is expected to respond to each recommendation to say whether they agree or disagree with what the Committee said.
The Committee keeps doing its job. New inquiries, public hearings and reports are possible. The Committee’s website will have information about any new inquiries or public hearings.
Changes to the Scheme often need agreement from state and territory governments.

What happens to evidence I gave the Committee?

2.15This is summarised below.

Submissions are available for everyone to see on the Committee’s website, (unless you asked us to keep your submission confidential) including people who work for the Australian Government and who make decisions about redress.
The Committee can use those submissions again in future reports.
Like submissions, evidence heard at public hearings is available on the Committee’s website and can be used again in future.
Confidential evidence stays confidential.
1. We heard from a survivor who shared the ‘anger, anguish and utter dismay’ of their redress experience and asked for some statements to be acknowledged:
‘I am not confident that my words will be read, acknowledged or valued.’
Many survivors ‘would not have the confidence’ to give evidence and miss out on the opportunity.
‘All survivors deserve to have their voice heard, respected and understood.’[1]
1. While this survivor asked to remain anonymous, we can say that your experience is acknowledged. What you sent us was read. We value your contribution and thank you for sharing your story with us.

What happens to the recommendations?

2.18The purpose of this report is to make recommendations (or proposals) for the Scheme to be changed. The aim is to make improve the Scheme, where this is possible or achievable.

2.19Since 2018, there have been several inquiries and reviews about whether the Scheme is working properly. They all made recommendations, some of which said similar things.

2.20The Australian Government is responsible for implementing the recommendations (making them happen). The Australian Government can choose whether they agree or disagree with the recommendations. Often, with the Scheme, this means getting agreement from state and territory governments.

2.21The Committee can recommend (but not require) these things be done. Sometimes, a recommendation can take a long time to be implemented. Recommendations can mean that laws, policy or process need to be changed.

2.22The Committee knows that there have been many recommendations about the Scheme since it began. The Scheme is due to end in 2028––around four years from now––and that means there is limited time to make changes.

A brief history of the National Redress Scheme

2.23The Scheme aims to help survivors of child sexual abuse that happened in places such as churches, schools and sporting clubs. These places and the organisations who managed them are called institutions.

2.24The Scheme includes a process to find out what happened and who is responsible. This means that an institution, if found responsible, can be held accountable and past wrongs can be redressed (or set right).

2.25The Scheme is also a way to acknowledge and recognise institutional failures.[2]

2.26Victims and survivors of abuse can apply for redress, but there are rules about who is eligible. While most applications succeed, not everyone who applies is found eligible or agrees with the outcome. Being eligible means you can receive redress.

2.27Redress offers may include:

Paying money to individuals, up to $150000.
A direct personal response, which might include saying sorry for past wrongs.
Counselling and psychological care, up to $5000.
1. Institutions voluntarily join the Scheme. That means that the institution is willing to give redress if they are found to be responsible for the abuse.
2. When institutions are asked to join and give redress but refuse, they risk:
Being unable to call themselves a charity, which means they could pay more tax.
Losing access to funding from the Australian Government.
Being embarrassed because people might think they have something to hide.
1. In 2017, the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse (Royal Commission) found:
There had been a national tragedy.
The courts were ‘failing many survivors.’[3]
1. The Royal Commission recommended that the Australian Government ‘should establish a single national redress scheme’[4] (Recommendation 26) with ‘no closing date’[5] (Recommendation 48).
2. Governments, including state governments, agreed with what the Royal Commission said, except that they decided to have a closing date for applications (30 June 2027).
3. The states agreed to give the Australian Government power to make laws so that there could be a National Redress Scheme.[6]
4. The Australian Parliament then made laws and the Scheme started work on 1July2018.

Who makes redress decisions?

2.35The Department of Social Services (the Department) is responsible for administering the Scheme.

2.36A person called the Scheme Operator has the power to decide who is given redress. The Scheme Operator is the Secretary of the Department. The Scheme Operator’s power is delegated (or passed on) to a group of people called Independent Decision Makers (IDMs). IDMs and redress decisions are discussed in more detail in Chapter 4.

2.37Their job is to look at applications and decide what redress should be offered. In some cases, they might decide that redress claims should be rejected.

Figure 2.1Redress application stages

Source: National Redress Scheme, Redress Application Guidebook 2024, p. 2. Available at: www.nationalredress.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/2024-06/nrs002-2312en%20%281%29_0.pdf

Redress eligibility

2.38The rules about who is eligible to receive redress are set out in the National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Act 2018 (Cth) (Redress Act).

2.39The rules about eligibility are explained on the Scheme’s website. You are eligible for redress if:

You experienced sexual abuse when you were under 18 years of age.
You were born before 30 June 2010.
The abuse happened before 1 July 2018 while you were in an institution, on the premises of an institution, where activities of an institution took place (such as a camp), or by an official of an institution.
You are an Australian citizen or permanent resident when you apply, unless an exception applies to you as a former child migrant who:

was sent to Australia from the United Kingdom or Malta prior to 1984
arrived in Australia without a parent or guardian and
were made ward of the state.
1. While these are the general principles, the law has fine print. If you are not sure about your eligibility for redress, you should seek advice.
2. You can only ask for redress once. If the survivor accepts their redress offer, then they cannot ask for more compensation from the responsible institution/s later.
3. Not everyone chooses redress or accepts a redress offer. Some survivors have received compensation from a legal settlement or civil claim.

Scheme closure

2.43The Scheme is due accept applications until 30 June 2027 and closes on 30 June 2028 (known as sunset day). We received some evidence during our inquiry that asked for the Scheme to be extended. For example:

The Survivors and Mates Support Network (SAMSN) said that redress applications should be accepted for 5 extra years until 2032.[7]
knowmore asked that ‘this committee and this government consider the possibility of extending the Scheme past the current end date’.[8]
Maurice Balckburn Lawyers told us to consider ‘what options may be available to extend the deadline for applications, where… that would be the fair thing to do’.[9]
Loddon Campaspe Multicultural Services (LCMS) said that refugee and migrant groups take longer to build trust in Australian society and ‘the relatively short term of the National Redress Scheme… is not sufficient time’.[10]
1. The Royal Commission recommended that the Scheme:
Should have no fixed closing date.
Should close ‘when applications… reduce to a level where it would be reasonable to consider closing’.
When ready to close, a date should be specified, ‘at least 12 months into the future.’[11]
1. Tuart Place said that for redress applicants, ‘disclosing their childhood sexual abuse is as distressing as the original experience.’[12] While these disclosures should depend on the victims and survivor readiness, the Scheme creates ‘artificial imperatives and timelines for disclosure.’[13]

Recent legislative changes

2.46The Australian Parliament recently changed the law that governs the Scheme. These changes took effect in April 2024.

2.47The changes aimed to improve the Scheme by:

Removing the restriction on people applying for redress from prisons.
Changing the special assessment process for people with serious criminal convictions.
Letting survivors provide more information when requesting a review of their redress offer.
Providing additional authorisations for sharing protected information, including for the purposes of sharing information about non-participating institutions with redress applicants.
Allowing finalised redress applications to be reviewed if relevant institutions later join the Scheme.[14]

Funder of last resort arrangements

2.48‘Funder of last resort’ is an arrangement to provide redress to survivors in limited circumstances.[15]

These arrangements can apply when an IDM for the Scheme finds a non-government institution responsible for abuse. The institution could be defunct or unable to join or participate in the Scheme.[16]
This means that the institution would usually not be able to pay redress.
knowmore said that ‘While the reasons for non-participation vary, the end result for survivors who experienced child sexual abuse in these institutions is the same — they are unable to access redress.’[17]
1. So that survivors in these circumstances can access redress, the Minister for Social Services can declare an institution under the funder of last resort arrangements. This means that the government pays that institution’s share of redress so that survivors can still get a redress payment.
Funder of last resort arrangements need the agreement of the state and territory governments.[18]
In limited circumstances, the Commonwealth and state and territory governments can also share the responsibility as funder of last resort.
1. In limited circumstances, redress can be provided using funder of last resort arrangements.[19] There are 133 institutions declared under the funder of last resort arrangements.[20]
2. Table 2.2 shows the amount of redress paid to survivors under the funder of last resort provisions.

Table 2.2Redress payments where funder of last resort provisions were applied

	2018–20 ($m)[21]	2020–21 ($m)	2021–22 ($m)	FY22–23 ($m)	FY23–24 ($m)
Redress payments (funder of last resort)	1.3	6.1	12.2	18.1	18.4

Source: Department of Social Services, Supplementary Submission 9.23, response IQ24-000164.

2.52Table 2.3 shows how long it typically takes to process a redress application where funder of last resort provisions are applied, compared to all redress applications.

Table 2.3Average processing time for redress applications where funder of last resort provisions were applied

Average processing time (months)	2018–20 [22]	2020–21	2021–22	2022–23	2023–24
All applications	12.3	11.1	12.1	11.8	14.9
Funder of last resort	16.6	14.2	19.5	17.6	17.8

Source: Department of Social Services, Supplementary Submission 9.23, response IQ24-000164 & response IQ24-000175.

Prisoners

2.53The inquiry started before the changes to the law that governs the Scheme took effect. This means that some evidence we received spoke about the old laws.

2.54Previously, survivors could not apply for redress if they were in prison unless in special circumstances.[23]

2.55However, the law has since changed so that prisoners can apply for redress.

The Second Year Review of the Scheme recommended that the law be changed so that prisoners can apply for redress.[24]
1. Tuart Place told us:
That ‘penalising people for their interactions with the justice system… does not reflect well on the scheme.’[25]
It can be hard to help prisoners because it is difficult to contact them.[26]
People who were abused as a child are likely overrepresented in prisons. Stopping prisoners from applying for redress means their abuse and pain is not acknowledged.[27]
1. knowmore anticipated this legislative change will create more work for redress support services.[28]
This change was not accounted for in costing estimates for knowmore. knowmore said they will need an extra $1.1 million a year to be able to keep up with the work caused by this change.[29]
However, knowmore said it 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’.[30]

Review and reform

2.58A document called an intergovernmental agreement explains the process for change and reform to the Scheme.

The agreement is between the Australian Government (the Commonwealth), the states and the territories. The agreement is not legally binding.
If participation in the Scheme is going to cost the states and territories more money or a ‘major design decision’ is proposed, then agreement about the change must be unanimous (everyone must agree).
Most other changes that require agreement have a special voting procedure:

Two thirds voting in favour based on numbers around the table.
A 75% majority of government liability for redress voting in favour (governments with more redress liability get more voting power).
Some minor changes do not require a vote.[31]
1. As mentioned above, agreement on redress reform depends on each government’s liability for redress payments, which gives that government a voting share. For example:

New South Wales (NSW) has the largest voting share, a vote equal to 34.45%,[32] which means that if their state government disagrees, then a proposal cannot reach unanimity or the 75% required for a change to be approved.
Liability and voting shares were decided before knowing the true numbers of redress applications. However, governments agreed that these voting shares would be locked and ‘will not be recalculated based on claims received by the Scheme’.[33]
In practice, NSW has had around 20% of liability redress and the largest share of liability (around 31%) has rested with Queensland. However, Queensland has only a 19% voting share.
1. In 2021, the Second Year Review report said that ‘the window for making meaningful changes to the Scheme has now closed’.[34] While some reform has been made, we heard evidence that more design changes are viewed as both necessary and overdue.
2. knowmore told us:
There is review fatigue as well as frustration about a ‘lack of meaningful improvements’ to the Scheme, which are ‘long overdue’.
Many recommendations remain unimplemented.
Implementation of many recommendations is uncertain due to ‘ongoing issues with transparency’.[35]
1. knowmore added that reforms have been too slow and ‘clock continues to tick on many of those vital reforms.’[36]
2. Dr Frank Golding OAM outlined a range of concerns with the Scheme’s development, design and operations:
‘Serious problems’ at the beginning of the Scheme are still being discussed in 2024 and ‘improvements… have been restricted to its least important flaws.’[37] Implementing ‘even the most modest changes, take between six and 12 months to achieve.’[38]
There has been a ‘revolving door of responsible ministers’ for the Scheme.[39]
Passage of laws to establish the Scheme was ‘hasty and made secretive to protect the interests of the powerful financial stakeholders’.[40]
The Scheme is designed so that it is ‘almost impossible to alter its principle foundations, no matter how damaging to survivors or how wide the gap between the avowed purpose of the Scheme and its operation.’[41]
The Scheme’s ‘major flaws… are systemic and embedded’ with ‘well-justified improvements… rejected because vested interests trumped survivor-focus.’[42]
Because decisions require either unanimity or a 75% majority, the voting system on redress reforms gives NSW ‘an effective veto’.[43]

General redress trends

2.64The Committee looked at the Scheme’s key data to understand how well the Scheme is working. The Committee was particularly interested in the data about applications for redress from people with disability and First Nations people. We also asked about care leavers, child migrants and prisoners.

2.65Each year, the Scheme Operator must report on the number of people who:

Applied for redress.
Were determined to be eligible for redress.
Accepted redress offers.
Declined redress offers.[44]
1. The Scheme Operator must also report on:
The number of institutions that were found responsible for abuse.
Details about redress payments, the counselling and psychological component of the Scheme, and direct personal responses.[45]
1. Australian Catholic Redress Limited said that ‘publicly available data provides little insight into the extent to which the Scheme is addressing the projected needs of survivors and care givers.’[46]
2. The Department of Social Services (the Department) reports on these matters in its annual report. The Department also reports on the number of:
Applicants who identified as Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander and other cohorts (note that some survivors are identified in multiple cohorts and could be counted in the data multiple times).
Applications received by each state and territory.
Applications received by gender and age.
1. The Department also publishes Strategic Success Measures on its website every six months containing information on applications received and finalised, as well as other metrics.
2. The Department provided information to the Committee on redress applicants with disability.
3. The number of applications to the Scheme has increased significantly each year since 2019–20. Figure 2.2 shows the number of redress applications received each year since the Scheme began.

Figure 2.3Redress applications from 2018 to 2024 (financial year)

Source: Source: Department of Social Services, Supplementary Submission 9.23, response IQ24-000173. Data for the financial years 2018-19 and 2019-20 is combined due to data reporting functionality. Department of Social Services yearly annual reports estimated 4,200 applications in 2018-19 and 3,127 applications in 2019-20.

2.72The Scheme is taking longer to process applications as more applications are received. Table 2.4 shows the average processing times for redress applications since the Scheme began.

Table 2.4Average processing times for redress applications

Average processing time (months)	2018–20 [47]	2020–21	2021–22	2022–23	2023–24
All applications	12.3	11.1	12.1	11.8	14.9
Priority status	11.5	10.4	11.4	10.2	13.5
First Nations	11.5	10.4	11.1	11.3	15.0
Disability	11.8	11.1	11.9	11.9	15.3
Funder of last resort	16.6	14.2	19.5	17.6	17.8

Source: Department of Social Services, Supplementary Submission 9.23, response IQ24-000175. A survivor’s background may place them in more than one cohort. A survivor may be counted multiple times in several cohorts.

2.73The next series of tables (Tables 2.6, 2.7 and 2.8) show redress applications by age group and location.

Table 2.6Redress applications by age group (numbers)

	Under 30 years old	31–50 years old	51–70 years old	Over 71 years old
Whole Scheme: number of applications	4008	13353	11 041	1908
First Nations (n)	1444	4407	4517	585
Disability (n)	840	3903	5787	1017
Care leavers	3053	7848	7312	1245
Child migrants	57	190	99	172
Prisoners	730	1785	Less than 5	Less than 5

Source: Department of Social Services, Supplementary Submission 9.8, response IQ23-000154. Current at September 2023. A survivor’s background may place them in more than one cohort. A survivor may be counted multiple times in several cohorts. Department of Social Services, Supplementary Submission 9.24, response IQ24-000195. Current as at 9 August 2024.

2.74A high number of redress applications come from Queensland.

Table 2.7Redress applications by state and territory (numbers)

	ACT	NSW	NT	QLD	SA	TAS	VIC	WA
Whole Scheme	522	9800	428	15 236	6556	2272	4921	6351
First Nations	69	3020	282	6017	1200	536	695	4125
Disability	130	3388	186	5182	1867	839	1995	2611
Care Leavers	146	3578	239	6477	1979	1102	1972	3934
Child migrants	7	134	Less than 5	108	71	14	71	Less than 5
Prisoners	11	548	39	1104	322	124	134	424

Source: Department of Social Services, Supplementary Submission 9.24, response IQ24-000195. Current as at 9 August 2024. A survivor’s background may place them in more than one cohort. A survivor may be counted multiple times in several cohorts.

Table 2.8Redress applications by remoteness

	Remote	Very remote	Inner regional	Outer regional	Major cities
Whole Scheme (n)	1119	628	6267	4047	14233
First Nations (n)	921	567	1914	2190	4158
Disability	434	278	2515	1741	5027
Care leavers	867	823	4243	3141	10 115
Child migrants	Not provided	<5	83	42	372
Prisoners	41	66	700	570	1142

Source: Department of Social Services, Supplementary Submission 9.24, response IQ24-000185. Current as at 9 August 2024. A survivor may identify as both First Nations and with disability, so would be counted in both groups.