3. Redress experiences

Making an application for redress

3.1Making a redress application means answering questions about your abuse. Sharing this information and thinking about the abuse can be upsetting.

3.2Words in this report could be upsetting as well. For example, this chapter talks about the impacts of being found ineligible for redress.

Deciding to apply for redress

3.3When survivors apply for redress, we heard that this may cause:

• Feelings like shame, guilt or embarrassment.[1]
• Lots of emotions or worries all at once.
• New trauma and pain.[2]
  4. Finding the right words can be traumatic and trigger feelings of shame.[3]
  5. We heard that applying for redress is a long journey:
• Survivors take an average of around 22 to 23 years to tell someone about their abuse.[4]
• Support services reported that clients may take 12 months to decide to begin an application and a further 12 to 14 months to complete the application.[5]
  6. Some survivors may decide not to apply for redress for lots of different reasons. For example:
• A civil claim could be a better option.
• Possibly the institution cannot be identified or the impacts of the abuse make it ‘too hard to apply’.[6]
• When a person is ready to disclose and seek help with redress, redress support services told us that there are long waiting lists and lengthy waiting times.[7]
• Some applicants give up on their application or stop talking to redress support services when they are told about possible waiting times.[8]
• There could be uncertainty about what was an ‘institutional setting’.[9]
  7. However, many survivors will apply for redress without help because telling someone else about their abuse is unbearable.[10] We heard that the process can be inherently re-traumatising.[11]
  8. Many survivors want to know their likely redress outcome before starting an application. For example, knowing how much money will be paid. While most redress applications are accepted, nobody can give exact promises. This uncertainty can hold people back from making an application for redress. The fear of being rejected is ‘very real’.[12]
  9. Applicants may feel that delays in the redress process are a sign that the institution does not want to acknowledge their abuse.[13] However, since October 2021, applicants may receive a $10000 advance payment, which is seen as making progress towards this acknowledgement.[14]
  10. Relationships Australia, a redress support service, said that ‘[t]he application process should be assessed in its entirety to allow the gaps in trauma-informed practice to be addressed.’[15]

The redress application form

3.11We heard that many applicants find the redress application form hard to complete.

3.12Tuart Place, a redress support service in Western Australia, said that the application form is ‘complicated and not user friendly’.[16] The Survivors and Mates Support Network (SAMSN), another redress support service, said that the application form is difficult because the person reading it is assumed to have a high level of literacy.[17]

3.13We note that there have been updates to the redress application form since we received some evidence.

3.14SAMSN suggested changes that included:

• Diagrams to assist with making the language more accessible.
• An option to record or draw answers to questions.[18]
• An option to tick boxes when describing the abuse experienced.[19]
  15. Relationships Australia said that the application form is lengthy, complex, demands ‘particularisation’ and ignores other forms of abuse inflicted upon victims and survivors. They said that despite intentions to make it approachable, the application form is ‘problematic, traumatising and confusing.’[20]
  16. The Aboriginal Family Legal Service (AFLS), a redress support service in Western Australia, said that the only way to contact the Scheme is by post, telephone or MyGov – which requires Internet access. Exchanging information can take a ‘long time’.[21] Some people do not have the Internet or a phone.[22]
  17. We heard that people like to share information in different ways:
• Posted mail is ‘often delayed or… lost’ and should not be relied upon when an email would be better.[23]
• MyGov and the Internet is inaccessible to some applicants and the easier option is to send them documents in hard copy.[24]
• We heard that MyGov can be intimidating for applicants with limited literacy or who have had negative experiences with government payments.[25]
  18. Available data suggests that there is a mixed preference for how redress application forms are given to the Scheme. Table 3.1 shows the number of redress applicants who applied online or used the paper application form.

Source: Department of Social Services, Supplementary Submission 9.24, response IQ24-000185. Current as at 9 August 2024. Some survivors could be in multiple cohorts and counted more than once.

Sharing details about what happened

3.19The application form asks survivors for lots of details. Thinking about the abuse can be very traumatic or hard to remember.

3.20We heard that many survivors get stuck on the question asking for detail about their sexual abuse. This detail includes discussing penetrative sexual abuse.[26] As SAMSN noted, the answer to this question is relied upon to assess the seriousness of their abuse and how much redress should be paid. SAMSN said that the answer is of ‘fundamental importance’ to the redress outcome.[27]

3.21The AFLS said that ‘every applicant seems to struggle’ with the question asking for detail about their abuse.[28] For example:

• Some cannot find the words and ‘you have to ask a lot of questions to get the necessary information out of them that we know the Scheme wants.’
• Some survivors are too ashamed to talk and need counselling before they disclose.
• Applicants in remote areas likely have minimal support through the process.[29]
  22. Finding those details can be challenging. Documents that might help can be hard to find. Anyone without access to the Internet or someone (such as a lawyer) to help them find documents is likely to be disadvantaged.[30] Kelso Lawyers said that gathering documentary evidence is a ‘significant’ burden on redress applicants.[31]

Source: National Redress Scheme, Application for Redress, p. 27. Available at: www.nationalredress.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/2024-06/nrs0012312p-final-artwork-print-d23-1196795_0.pdf

What does the Scheme want to know? Why does this matter?

3.23Independent Decision Makers (IDMs) decide how much redress money should be paid. How much gets paid depends on what happened and prior compensation payments. The Scheme uses the application form to find out this information.

3.24The Scheme uses an assessment matrix (a numbers chart used to add up redress payments) when working out how much redress money should be paid to a survivor. This works like a calculator. The assessment matrix is shown below:

Source: Australian Government, ‘Guide to Social Policy Law, National Redress Guide’, version 1.23. Available at: https://guides.dss.gov.au/national-redress-guide/5/1

3.25There can be a big difference in redress outcomes depending on severity of the abuse. For example:

• If penetrative abuse is specified, the amount is up to $70000, whereas contact is calculated at $30000 or exposure at $5000.
• Additional redress amounts can be paid in recognition of other abuse experienced.[32]
  26. SAMSN told us this is why mentioning detail about penetrative abuse, if it occurred, is of ‘fundamental importance’ to redress outcomes for survivors.[33]
  27. Care Leavers Australasia Network (CLAN), a redress support service, said that many care leavers are ashamed and fearful about disclosing their abuse. Trust takes time and, in some cases, CLAN said that redress applicants ‘don’t disclose until after they have received their outcome when it is too late.’[34]
  28. The Scheme’s purpose is limited to child sexual abuse in institutional settings.
• The Blue Knot Foundation (Blue Knot) told us that sexual abuse is ‘rarely the only violation people experience.’ Other abuses include, betrayal, secrecy, abuse of power and emotional manipulation.[35]
• Relationships Australia observed that access to the Scheme is ‘contingent upon the occurrence of sexual abuse’ and ignores other ‘damaging forms of abuse that have affected survivors.’[36]

How much detail should the Scheme know?

3.29We were told that this is hard to judge. Detail is important but also traumatic. Redress support services told us about how they try to find the right balance.

• SAMSN said some clients disclosed penetrative abuse in general words such as ‘doing weird things’ or ‘he tried… everything on me’. Those descriptions were insufficient to establish penetrative abuse. On advice from knowmore, SAMSN said that a client was supported to talk again and ‘particularise’ the abuse.[37]
• Blue Knot said that in some cases, a person’s extreme abuse is expected to be questioned when assessed. To avoid those questions, some redress applicants might be advised to ‘dilute’ their story to make it more believable, something Blue Knot said is a ‘real problem’.[38]
• Blue Knot suggested that if questions are irrelevant to a decision about redress, then the question ‘needs to be removed’ and better guidance should be given to applicants.[39]
• Micah Projects, a redress support service, said that the applicant should be allowed to choose how much detail they disclose about their sexual abuse. Micah Projects asked: ‘If we accept, based on the thousands of submissions to the Royal Commission, that sexual abuse was rampant within participating institutions, why is it necessary to detail the abuse?’[40]
  30. We heard from Lara Kaput, who said she received conflicting advice on how much detail should be included in the redress application.[41]
• She recalled being told not to include too much information, because that would be given to the responsible institution.
• However, she was then advised to include more information, because not enough detail could mean an unsuccessful redress outcome.[42]

Identity and identification

3.31Redress applicants are asked to verify their identity. This can be done by presenting a Centrelink customer reference number, Department of Veterans’ Affairs file number or original identity documents.[43]

3.32We heard that being asked to prove your identity, having this doubted and handing over documents can be distressing and triggering.[44]

3.33The Women’s Cottage, a redress support service, said that identity verification can be distressing because many applicants do not have a ‘bureaucratic version’ of their identity. The process could feel like an institutional ‘take over’ of the applicant. The Women’s Cottage said that identity processes should be more ‘flexible and responsive to the individual situation’.[45]

3.34Blue Knot said that information is hard to keep private in small communities, group homes or supported accommodation. The reason for visiting a Centrelink office could be found out. This could cause shame and impact on mental health.[46] Blue Knot added that to minimise privacy risks, redress applicants might travel long distances to a Centrelink office away from their community.[47]

3.35For people who live in remote areas, the nearest Centrelink office could be a long distance from where they live.[48]

3.36Tuart Place said that lodging a redress application online can be preferable for some survivors who are concerned that talking to a local support service could compromise their privacy.[49]

3.37Blue Knot said that verifying identification and providing consistent signatures is a challenge for people who are illiterate. Blue Knot said that the identity process should be simplified.[50]

Assessing redress applications

3.38Completed redress applications are sent to the Department of Social Services (where the Scheme is administered) to be assessed. This takes time. The assessment includes:

• Checking what the application said. More information might be requested.
• Finding the institution named or described. Sometimes, names may have changed. Possibly, old institutions joined or split up into new institutions. Someone may have to do research to find the right institution.[51]
• Asking for a response from the institution. An application could name several institutions and they all must be contacted.
• Asking an IDM to look at the application and say whether redress should be given.
• Adding up how much redress money should be given.
  39. Almost half of redress applications (42%) name 3 or more institutions.[52]

Uncertain waiting times

3.40The length of time it takes to assess redress applications is around 14.9 months.[53]

3.41The Committee was told that lengthy waiting times are a problem because:

• Waiting a long time causes uncertainty, stress and more trauma.[54]
• Trust is lost, especially if different things are said about how long it takes to receive redress.
• Some people who ask for redress are elderly or unwell. They have limited time. They fear that they could die before they receive their redress.[55]
• To support the elderly and unwell, the Redress Act allows for an advanced payment of $10 000 for applicants who are terminally ill, over 70 years of age, or over 55 years of age where the person is Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander.
• Application progress cannot be tracked.[56]
  42. knowmore said that some applicants pass away without receiving redress due to processing delays. Around 1 in 6 (16%) of knowmore’s clients are advanced in age or have illness likely to limit their life expectancy.[57]
  43. knowmore observed that ‘every major review’ of the Scheme has made a similar observation. knowmore added that while the delay is sometimes because an institution is slow to join the Scheme, the reasons are often unknown.[58]
  44. When asking for a progress update, Scheme staff asked one survivor to ‘stop calling’ and mentioned that they knew a Member of Parliament’s office had also been contacted.[59]

Uncertain process

3.45Blue Knot said that often the application goes into a big black hole with limited visibility of ‘what is going on behind the scenes’.[60]

3.46Blue Knot said that by trying to deter a ‘very small percentage’ of fabricated redress applications, treating all cases with a degree of scepticism is leading to ‘disastrous consequences’ for people who engage with redress. Blue Knot said that there are ‘unclear criteria’ about how redress applications are assessed and ‘[t]he whole assessment matrix… is not informed by an understanding of child sexual abuse.’[61]

3.47Data provided by the Department of Social Services shows that the fraud rate within the Scheme is low, which is consistent with the ‘very small percentage’ as described by the Blue Knot Foundation.[62]

3.48Relationships Australia said:

• There is a ‘lack of continuity’ when applications are being handled.[63]
• Scheme staff and decision makers can remain anonymous and systems are impersonal.
• Calling 1800 phone numbers, navigating menu systems, leaving messages, waiting for responses and getting stuck in a ‘1800 loop’ has negative side effects.
• Overall, these experiences can seem like an attack on their hard-won agency and independence, which causes trauma and deters redress applicants.[64]
  49. Relationships Australia recommended that a single case worker should oversee each redress application.[65]

Asking for missing information and correcting errors

3.50Sometimes redress applications may have missing information or might need more detail. Redress applicants might be asked to rewrite some of their application, which is summarised in a document called a section 24 letter.[66]

3.51Blue Knot said that this letter can cause distress:

• The survivor may interpret the letter to mean that they are not believed.
• When survivors ask for help, copies of the letter and their application must be found, which can take ‘up to six weeks’ to be posted.
• Many clients have literacy issues and cannot arrange this for themselves.[67]
  52. Tuart Place noted that while some applicants may prefer to submit their redress applications online and unassisted, there is a risk that they could contain insufficient information to be assessed.[68] Tuart Place added:
• The Scheme then tells the applicant that more information is needed and suggests that they ask a redress support service for help.
• This has ‘increased the already growing demand’ on services, ‘resulting in even longer waiting lists.’[69]
  53. Relationships Australia said that survivors are being asked to retell their stories multiple times, possibly received with inquisitorial or investigative responses, something which compounds trauma and erodes trust.[70]
  54. The Bravehearts Foundation (Beyond Brave) (Bravehearts) said:
• Redress applicants could be asked to remember details from events that may have happened 50 years ago.[71]
• Over time, the Scheme has changed its requirements. The Committee asked whether that meant the Scheme’s assessors are applying a much higher threshold. ‘That is for sure’ Bravehearts said.[72]
  55. Bravehearts clarified that ‘the issue is around how Scheme staff are processing these applications and the way they seek information’, such as considering ‘whether the request is trauma informed and even necessary given that records are being requested from the responsible institution.’[73]
  56. Blue Knot said that while redress applicants give their information to prove what happened, those applicants don’t know who reads it and decides on the outcome. This creates power imbalance, creates mistrust and makes some people feel unsafe.[74]
  57. SAMSN suggested that IDMs should look at answers to Question 44 from ‘a trauma-informed lens not a strictly legal lens.’[75]
  58. We heard that if a redress application form has small errors, it may have to be amended, meaning that someone living in a remote area could be asked to travel 400 kilometres to sign their name again.[76]

Phone calls recorded

3.59We heard that Scheme staff may record phone calls with redress applicants. While callers are informed, knowmore advised that recording calls is ‘neither trauma-informed nor culturally safe’ and this should be reviewed.[77]

3.60The impacts on redress applicants included:

• Concern that the recording might be shared and uncertainty around what happens to the recording after the call.
• Abrupt responses from Scheme staff if consent to record the call is refused.
• If the phone call is unexpected, that can cause distress and the consent (or refusal) could be an uninformed choice.[78]
  61. We heard from ‘Jane’, a survivor who applied for redress, about how Scheme staff secretly recorded conversations.[79]

What happens when an institution is not participating?

3.62Sometimes, an institution named in a redress application is not participating in the Scheme and will be asked to join. Some institutions are intending to join and have been listed on the Scheme’s website as intending to join, but have not yet done so.

3.63We heard about the impacts of this situation:

• We were shown an example of a letter from the Scheme saying: ‘We are not able to make a decision about your redress at this time because the institution that you wrote about has not yet joined the Scheme’. The letter then says that ‘[y]ou can leave your application on hold until the institution that you wrote about joins the Scheme.’[80]
• We were told that this kind of letter will further exacerbate ‘feelings of frustration and helplessness’, particularly for anyone who finds the language or document format inaccessible.[81]
• While institutions may signal an intention to join, that process can take a long time. Meanwhile, redress applicants don’t know the reasons for delays or when the institution will be accepted into the Scheme.[82]
  64. When this happens, the survivor has no idea how long they might wait for the institution to join the Scheme.
  65. Parliament made changes in early 2024 to enable a survivor to be provided with updates and information about the onboarding of institutions named in their application, to address some of these issues.
  66. We heard from Alison Quigley, who described her experiences waiting for Gymnastics Australia to join the Scheme after she applied for redress in July 2021:
• Gymnastics Australia’s annual reports showed that they ‘could afford to sign on.’
• The delays suggested that the Australian Government might stop giving money to Gymnastics Australia.
• Instead, ‘there was a lot of silence. I wrote several times… asking for updates. I couldn’t get any answers’, something which ‘goes against principles of transparency that survivors so desperately need’.[83]
  67. In May 2023, Gymnastics Australia responded and said:
• A process to join the Scheme had started, but the institution ‘was deemed to be in a financial position that prevented it from being accepted’.
• Sporting organisations have complex structures, such as federated models, that make it hard to know which current institution has carried responsibility for past abuse.[84]
  68. In August 2023, Gymnastics Australia joined the Scheme and became a participating institution.[85]
  69. In December 2021, the Redress Minister’s Board considered Funder of Last Resort Arrangements for small and defunct sporting clubs and chose not to enter into FOLR arrangements meaning some applications were left on hold due to institutions not participating.[86]
  70. Ministers discussed this decision in July 2024, but no agreement was reached.[87]

Uncertain eligibility for redress

3.71Tuart Place, a redress support service in Western Australia, told us that eligibility for redress can depend on factors including:

• Whether an institution had introduced a child, including state wards, to their abuser.[88]
• Whether someone was a state ward. Some clients who apply for redress will remember being treated like a state ward.
• When their redress application is assessed, sometimes the survivor finds out that they were not a state ward. That may mean that their redress application is rejected.[89]
  72. Tuart Place said that rejection is ‘emotionally devastating’ to hear, given that survivors likely shared ‘shameful details’ in their redress application.[90]
  73. Sometimes, a person aged 18 to 21 years was legally a child at the time of their abuse. However, those survivors are ineligible for redress because the Scheme says survivors needed to experience sexual abuse when they were under 18 years of age to be eligible.[91]
  74. For example, we heard that a child’s legal status could change or be uncertain:
• Often children did not know their legal status.[92]
• What the law said about who had responsibility for a child placed in care could also change.[93]
  75. Tuart Place and Bravehearts Foundation told us that they think that some Independent Decision Makers potentially don’t understand how government control was once exercised over First Nations children.[94] This is also talked about in Chapter6.
  76. Parents may have voluntarily placed their children into a home or institution at their own expense and without government approval or court orders. Those children were possibly not recognised or defined as state wards or care leavers. Limited records were kept and, if they were, those records could be lost or untraceable.[95]
  77. The St Vincent de Paul Society said that while out-of-home care is now highly regulated, the system had once been ‘very casual.’[96]

Evidence from Tracie

3.78We heard from Tracie Oldham, who grew up in Victoria and was ‘[r]aped daily beginning when I was seven years old’, subjected to daily internal examinations and suffered ‘horrific mental and physical abuse’ until age 16.[97]

• In around 1964 the government placed her in ‘temporary care’ pending return to her mother.[98] That never happened; she never returned to her mother. She lived with ‘sadistic’ foster carers and ‘grew up being told I was a state ward’.[99]
• Later in life, MsOldham was told that she had been placed voluntarily.[100]
• At least one of her foster carers received an endowment (payment) from the government, which could help clarify her legal status, but those records were destroyed.[101] Because documents are missing, there is no reliable record to contradict the notion that MsOldham returned to live with her mother.[102]
  79. This background and the missing records meant that Ms Oldham thought she would not qualify for redress, although she decided to seek advice and contacted the Scheme to discuss her eligibility.[103]
• Scheme staff interviewed her for two hours. Ms Oldham disclosed that she was not a state ward and had no records about her childhood. Ms Oldham was advised to seek legal advice and, as nobody had said otherwise, ‘I honestly thought I had been accepted.’[104]
• After initially being told that she had an ‘extremely powerful case’, lawyers declined to help her. Police discontinued a criminal complaint.[105] She contacted Scheme staff who ‘promised me everything would be all right’ and made a further phone appointment.[106]
• However, during the next phone call, Ms Oldham said advice from the Scheme then changed. ‘I was met with a very cold and callous reaction from the representative… I was not a ward of the state… Case closed’, she recalled.[107]
• Ms Oldham asked us: ‘Why did they give me the illusion that I was qualified, only to let me down?’[108]
  80. Ms Oldham said that the Scheme is trusted with information that is ‘just thrown in the bin’.[109] She added that ‘you’re constantly retraumatising survivors by telling us we don’t matter’[110] and making survivors feel ‘invisible’.[111]

Evidence from Ashley

3.81We heard from Ashley Illma Gore who left home at age 14. In around 2006, she moved into a shared apartment at the Gold Coast in Queensland. Ms Gore told us:

• The Queensland Government sent an official from the Department of Child Services to assess the safety risks. The Department’s role included assessing risks and seeking a court order if a child needed to be taken into care.[112]
• The Department assessed that Ms Gore was ‘not being at risk of harm’. However, 2 out of 3 roommates were convicted criminals.
• Ms Gore said: ‘One would eventually go on to brutally rape me with his friend as a “gay conversion kit” and then be tried publicly for attempted murder of another person.’[113]
• She had no way of contacting Child Services and became homeless after the rape and slept in garages. Centrelink staff told her she was ‘young and stupid’.[114]
  82. In February 2024, Ms Gore applied for redress. ‘The process was difficult, but when I read the description of institutional sexual abuse, I was surprised… to find that I met the eligibility criteria’, she said. Redress avoided the difficult option of a civil claim.[115]
  83. ‘The recognition and payment from the Redress Scheme could mean that I could start my life from scratch, just at zero and find stability after losing my childhood’, shesaid.
• Ms Gore since found out that because the case worker assessed no risk of harm no court order was ever arranged.
• My case is called a ‘voluntary placement’, Ms Gore said, adding that the Scheme ‘does not recognize voluntary placements’.
• ‘Although my Redress case is ongoing, I fear I will have gone through 13 months of silence from the scheme only to be told again that it’s my fault’, Ms Gore said.[116]
  84. As of September 2024, Ms Gore is still waiting an outcome for her redress application.

Redress outcomes

3.85Most applicants are found eligible for redress. Since the Scheme began, 17 071 applications have been found eligible. Around 1713 (or 10%) have been found ineligible.[117]

3.86Applicants are given time to consider whether they would like the accept the redress offered. Extensions are possible.[118] Since the Scheme started, a small percentage of redress offers have been declined or withdrawn.

3.87Redress 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.

How does the Scheme decide who is eligible for redress?

3.88The Scheme makes decisions about redress using legal terms, such as ‘standard of proof’ and ‘reasonable likelihood’.

• The Scheme has a standard of proof (like a threshold, test or measure) that is used to decide whether someone is eligible for redress.
• If information shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that someone is eligible, then the standard of proof is met and redress can be offered.
• The Scheme defines reasonable likelihood to mean: ‘the chance of the person being eligible for redress is real, and is not fanciful or remote and is more than merely plausible’.[119]
  89. The Scheme’s standard of proof is lower than the ‘balance of probabilities’, which is used in the courts for civil cases and much lower than ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ that is the standard to find a person guilty of a crime.
  90. The Department, who administer the Scheme, said that redress eligibility is determined ‘on a case-by-case basis’.[120]

What happens when someone is eligible for redress?

3.91Sometimes, although eligible, the applicant will feel that the redress outcome was only partly successful or they might regret asking for redress. Possibly, the redress payment offered is lower than expected.

3.92SAMSN told us that redress has been ‘life changing’ for many clients, particularly when they receive a written apology from someone in authority, which can be an ‘incredible gift.’[121]

3.93Micah Projects told us:

• Success is a subjective question and depends on an individual’s goals. For example, receiving counselling and a direct personal response can give a ‘huge sense of justice’. Whether redress fulfils someone’s sense of justice is variable and a ‘personal matter’ for them.[122]
• Someone’s experience may change during the application process. For a lot of applicants, the long wait is ‘incredibly difficult’ but this can be seen as worthwhile if they get an outcome. Others will feel that the outcome does not achieve a sense of justice.[123]
• While the potential for fundamental changes to the redress application process is likely ‘quite limited’, the focus should be about supporting people to obtain the best possible outcome.[124]
  94. Relationships Australia said that the Scheme should be re-conceptualised to ‘restore… a belief in the accounts of survivors and to… embed trauma-informed practice in all aspects of the Scheme’.[125]
  95. Blue Knot said:
• Many of their clients ‘regret’ the redress process. This is because revisiting the ‘very core’ of someone’s trauma makes it hard for redress applicants to withstand the application process.
• While the Scheme is meant to help people heal, ‘its very structure sets people up for re-traumatisation’.[126]
  96. We received a submission from Christopher Coombes, who said that while redress gave him a positive outcome, there are ‘clear cracks in its implementation.’[127]
  97. MrCoombes described the emotional toll caused by ‘[a] burst of work, silence, rinse and repeat’ to get advice and forms submitted, including:
• Small steps such as visiting Centrelink and ‘jumping through all the administrative hoops’.
• The process assumed English could be read and written.
• He added that he had the ‘luxury of clear evidence’ to demonstrate his eligibility for redress.[128]

Evidence from Robbie

3.98We heard from Robbie Gambley and his experience seeking redress and how the outcome impacted on him. A science teacher sexually abused him at a public school in NewSouth Wales.

3.99Mr Gambley told us that he received an ‘absolutely pathetic’ redress offer, which he rejected.[129] He said:

• The Scheme is ‘incredibly cruel and incredibly triggering and upsetting’.
• Scheme staff called him unexpectedly. Although the call should have gone to his support person, in a state of shock he said ‘Oh yes. Go ahead’.
• That meant he had no support during the call. ‘Well, five minutes later I was crying and in tears’, he said.[130]
  100. Then, Mr Gambley said, about two weeks later he asked for documents included with his redress application to be returned.
• When he asked for them to be returned, he was told ‘your documents have been destroyed’ and made into digital copies.[131]
• ‘I put so much work into my application’, he said, adding that the digital copy was a ‘mishmash’. When he saw this, ‘there was another big cry session… It’s trauma you don’t need to go through’, he said.[132]
• This included destroying an original photo of Mr Gambley, aged 10, standing alongside a horse – a photo ‘of Robbie and Brownie, as I call it’. The photo was meant to be a reminder that ‘we were innocent, beautiful, happy wonderful children when the abuse took place’, he said. ‘To have that destroyed was very upsetting’.[133]
  101. Mr Gambley added that he received a letter to explain the outcome.
• The letter said: ‘institution section: not applicable’.
• That was ‘extremely hurtful’ to Mr Gambley, ‘because how can the abuse be any different in one institution to any other institution?’[134]
  102. We asked Mr Gambley if he knew why the letter used that language. He said:
• ‘That bloke said I didn’t qualify’; however, ‘it was a public school’.
• Mr Gambley said that he is considering challenging the outcome.[135]

Redress offers accepted without legal advice

3.103Lawyers practising in abuse law told us about clients who had accepted their redress offer and regretted the decision or did not understand the legal consequences.

3.104We heard that this is mainly because the client may have:

• Accepted their redress offer without first receiving legal advice.
• Received poor quality advice from someone who is not a lawyer.
  105. We heard that the Scheme has allowed applicants an extension of time to consider their redress offer, seek advice and to consider alternative options (such as making a civil claim).[136]
  106. Issues relating to the quality of legal advice are discussed in Chapters 9 and 10.

Direct personal response

3.107We received differing views and evidence about direct personal responses (DPR) from responsible institutions.

3.108A DPR is available to survivors as part of their redress outcome.

• A DPR is an opportunity for survivors to receive an apology from the institution/s for the harm they caused.
• DPRs can also include a description of what the institution/s has done to stop abuse from happening to anyone else.

Source: Department of Social Services, Supplementary Submission 9.23, response IQ24-000171. A survivor may accept more than one direct personal response.

3.109As of 9 August 2024, 1152 direct personal responses have been completed and accepted by 850 redress applicants (some applicants accepted more than one DPR from multiple institutions). This indicates that a small percentage of survivors who accept a DPR have their DPR completed.[138]

3.110While redress applicants may indicate that they have accepted, whether a DPR is undertaken or received is not captured in available data.[139]

• Kelso Lawyers said that the number of applicants who receive a direct personal response is ‘undeniably low’. Kelso Lawyers provided figures suggesting only around 10% of applicants who would like a DPR receive one.[140]
• Kelso Lawyers said that this is because redress applicants are asked to contact the relevant institution to ask for their DPR, which means they are ‘discouraged simply because of the burden placed upon them.’[141]
  111. Australian Catholic Redress Limited said:
• There is ‘a very low uptake of direct personal responses and apologies’.[142]
• Some survivors who receive a redress payment ‘just want it all to be over’ and feel that the DPR is less important.[143]
  112. Blue Knot noted that the entire redress application is usually shared with an institution to progress a direct and personal response.[144]
  113. Australian Catholic Redress Limited explained that the way DPRs are set up mean that the Scheme tells the survivor the name of the person to contact with an email address and phone number so that they can decide when to ask for the DPR.[145] The onus, therefore, is on the survivor to take the first step, which can be difficult due to the past trauma experienced with the institution.
  114. We asked if there could be a safer way for institutions and applicants to contact each other. Australian Catholic Redress Limited said that currently, ‘that’s the way the system is designed’ and it is ‘not what we would call a trauma-informed approach’.[146]

What happens when someone is ineligible for redress?

3.115In a minority of cases, redress applications are found ineligible. Data available to us shows that around 1713 redress applications were found ineligible (since the Scheme started up to August 2024).[147] This represents about 10% of all redress finalised applications.[148]

Source: Department of Social Services, Supplementary Submission 9.23, response IQ24-000168.

3.116We heard that survivors and support services may have spent many months preparing a redress application, waited a long time for it to be assessed and then told that the applicant is ineligible for redress.

3.117The Department told us that there are different reasons that a redress application may be found ineligible, including:

• No participating institution(s) is/are responsible
• The applicant was not sexually abused
• Abuse did not occur when the applicant was 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
• Abuse did not occur before 1 July 2018.[150]
  118. A sample of how this news is provided to survivors is shown below.

Source: Name withheld, Submission 38.

3.119In the evidence we received, the words ‘rejection’ or ‘rejected’ were used many times, often to help explain why ineligibility is so devastating for victims and survivors who are ineligible for redress.

3.120A rejection or receiving a low redress offer can have traumatic impacts on victims and survivors, especially when the reasons are poorly explained. They feel confused, devastated or possibly suicidal. There can be delays getting this detail in writing. Then there can be questions about how the decision was made.[151]

3.121knowmore said that ‘so much of’ what survivors want is the acknowledgement of institutional responsibility.

3.122The letter explaining the outcomes can cause ‘incredible distress’.[152]

3.123Some survivors become suicidal when told that an institution was found not to be responsible.

3.124A survivor said to us that they expected to deal with their memories and past trauma when applying for redress.[153]

• The survivor began preparing their application in July 2020, applied in March 2021, found ineligible in March 2024 and asked for this decision to be reviewed in September 2024.
• The new trauma ‘inflicted by the process’ was unexpected and that ‘I have been left to find my own ongoing support while I wait for a final outcome’.
• Further, ‘there seems to be no responsibility taken’ by the Scheme for survivor wellbeing, treatment and trauma.[154]
  125. The advice letter includes a determination summary and advice on how to ask for a review.

Source: Name withheld, Submission 38.

3.126Some rules about reviews changed in April 2024. A survivor may now include ‘additional information and documents to support your review request’.[155]

Reviewing redress outcomes and asking for reasons

3.127Redress applicants can ask for a review.

• A review is what happens when a redress applicant would like the decision changed or the redress offer to be reconsidered (looked at again).
• Redress decisions cannot be legally challenged or appealed in the courts.
• The Scheme will arrange a document called a statement of reasons to say why someone was ineligible for redress.
  128. In summary, decisions are rarely challenged and even more rarely changed.[156]
  129. Relationships Australia (Northern Territory), a redress support service, said that telling redress applicants that they are ineligible is particularly challenging and traumatic:
• Receiving this news ‘with limited reasoning can exacerbate this trauma and cause further distress’.
• A client, upon receiving this news by phone from the Scheme, became distressed and suicidal when told they would need to wait 3 to 4 months for the reasons.
• At the start of the inquiry, submitters said there is usually a lengthy wait for document called a ‘statement of reasons’ to be received from the Scheme. However, we note that practices recently changed and the reasons are now freely given.[157]
• There is a ‘significant organisational risk…if clients are becoming suicidal due to the poor process’.[158]
  130. Relationships Australia (Northern Territory) added that letters sent from the Scheme to redress applicants ‘have caused distress’, particularly letters saying that an institution is not participating in the Scheme.[159]
  131. Bravehearts said that feedback from IDMs to support services about redress eligibility determinations are ‘very poor’. Protected information provisions may prevent much from being disclosed. There will be advice to say that ‘there is no institution that can be found responsible’. Bravehearts said that the reasons why, which might help find the right institution, are kept hidden.[160]
  132. knowmore said that reasons for redress decisions tend to be ‘heavily redacted’ and ‘do little to help survivors’. knowmore added that without help from a lawyer or support service, obtaining those reasons would be a difficult task.[161]
  133. A redress applicant told us that they waited one year for a statement of reasons, which poorly explained the decision. The applicant asked for more detail. They were sent a new letter that was ‘exactly the same, almost word for word’. knowmore could not help any further. The applicant felt ‘abandoned and retraumatised’.[162]
  134. Another survivor, Lachlan Stonehouse, waited two years for a redress outcome.
• The decision found some connection to the church, but not enough for the church to be responsible for the abuse.
• ‘I can’t explain how dissatisfied I am with the system that has delivered my outcome’, Mr Stonehouse said. ‘The purpose I thought was to review and support victims who had been abused, not to find mechanisms… to exclude’.[163]
  135. He said in asking for a review, ‘there was no option to for adding any new information’. The review upheld the original outcome.[164]
  136. As of August 2024, 829 survivors have requested a review of their redress determination since the Scheme began. Of these:
• 192 reviews of redress determinations are in progress.
• 637 review determinations have been finalised. 501 of these decisions were upheld (resulting in no change for the applicant). 136 reviews were changed, including 103 instances where the payment outcome was increased, 1 instance where the payment outcome was decreased, and 32 instances where there was a change to the determination, but not to the payment.
• The Department explained that the 1 instance where a review resulted in a decreased payment outcome for the applicant ‘… was caused by an error in the assessment of the prior payment in the initial determination. In review, this error was rectified which resulted in a lower payment amount with no debt incurred.’[165]
  137. Table 3.4 shows statistics on reviews of redress offers since the Scheme began.

Source: Department of Social Services, Supplementary Submission 9.24, response IQ24-000181.

3.138We heard that from CLAN that some survivors are fearful that a review means their redress outcome could be reduced or reversed.[168]

3.139To ask for a review, there is a form called an ‘Application for Review of Determination’.[169] The four-page form has varied styles, fonts, colours and legal information. This form advises survivors that they could potentially receive less if they ask for a review.

Source: National Redress Scheme, ‘What happens after applying?’ www.nationalredress.gov.au/apply/what-happens-after-applying, viewed 30 August 2024.

3.140In practice a reduced outcome is very unlikely. In April 2023, we heard that a redress payment offered to a survivor had been reduced on 8 occasions following a review.[170]

3.141The way that applications are reviewed changed on 4 April 2024 to allow an applicant to provide new information with their request for a review. Before these changes, the IDM reviewing the redress decision could not consider new information.

3.142The Department explained the difference between a review and a revocation:

• A review is available to an applicant in relation to the original determination. The reviewing IDM can affirm, vary or set aside the original determination.
• A revocation is the ‘cancellation’ of the original determination where the Operator (or their delegate) receives new information that they did not know before making the original determination and the Operator (or their delegate) considers that had the information been provided before making the determination, they would not have made the determination or would have made a different determination.[171]
  143. Since the Scheme began, 392 applicants requested their determination be revoked. 104 requests for revocation were upheld (not granted to the applicant). Very few revocations result in no change or a decrease from the original offer. Data is not available for the number of revocations withdrawn.[172]
  144. Approximately 234 revocations were revised, with approximately 54 revocations still in progress.[173]

Complaints about redress

3.145The Scheme sometimes receives complaints. Unfortunately, complaint data is unavailable prior to 1 July 2022.

• In 2022–23, the Scheme received 431 complaints from individuals.
• Among this number, 156 were found substantiated or partially substantiated.
• The Scheme aims to resolve complaints within 28 days, although ‘complex matters may take longer’.[174]
  146. The ‘most common’ complaint related to applications, such as timeframes, eligibility and process.[175] Other complaint themes related to:
• Services, such as redress support services and their responsiveness.
• Redress payments, including the amount offered, maximum payment and prior payments.
• Institutions and their participation in the Scheme.
• Requests for documents from institutions.
• Direct personal responses.[176]

Waivers

3.147The Scheme Operator can grant waivers to institutions who request them.

• A waiver means that your right to ask for something (like money) is given up.
• If this happens, the government will waive the institution’s obligation to pay redress.
• The institution pays nothing. The government then uses its own money so survivors can receive redress.
  148. Waivers are dealt with in the Redress Act. Under section 156 of the Redress Act, the Scheme Operator may waive the payment of a funding contribution or late payment penalty (in full or in part) by a participating institution or funder of last resort if the Operator is satisfied there are exceptional circumstances justifying the waiver.
  149. Under section 157 of the Redress Act, a participating institution or funder of last resort that is affected by the Scheme Operator’s decision about waiving a payment can request the Operator to reconsider the decision.[177]
  150. As of 9 August 2024, 149 waiver requests have been received by the Scheme since it commenced.[178]
  151. Not many waivers have been given to institutions since the Scheme began.
• The Department explained that a request for a waiver is given initial consideration (called a Section 156 waiver).
• An institution can request further consideration (a Section 157 waiver).[179]
  152. Table 3.5 shows the number of waivers granted since 2019.

Source: Department of Social Services, Supplementary Submission 9.24, response IQ24-000194.

Nominees

3.153Applicants can ask someone for help with their redress application. This person is called a nominee. As on 9 August 2024, 16% of the redress applications on hand with the Scheme had an active nominee arrangement.[180]

3.154Assistance nominees can do things on the applicant’s behalf, such as receiving phone calls, letters and doing the paperwork. Some nominees – called legal nominees – can also apply for redress and decide whether to accept the redress offer on a survivor’s behalf.[181]

3.155We heard that having a nominee can ‘remove a lot of the anxiety’ for applicants.[182] Kelso lawyers said that nominees ‘distil complex information into something more easily understood’ for vulnerable people.[183] CLAN said that some victims and survivors may apply for redress unassisted by a nominee, which can negatively impact on the redress outcome.[184]

3.156However, we also heard that Department staff sometimes ignore or overlook nominee arrangements and contact applicants instead of the nominee.[185]

3.157Kelso Lawyers gave examples that included:

• Redress applicants being asked about their preference for a nominee after this has already been confirmed.
• Redress applicants being asked complex questions without their nominee being involved.
• Redress applicants being contacted without support from their nominee.[186]
  158. Bravehearts said that Scheme staff ‘often refuse to accept’ the nominee form and request verbal consent from the client. Bravehearts said that while the Scheme has ‘assured us that they are working to improve training for staff’, issues with the nominee process have existed since the Scheme started.[187]
  159. knowmore said that unexpected contact from Scheme staff can be distressing and harmful, particularly for First Nations clients who need cultural support when dealing with government institutions.[188]
  160. People With Disability Australia (PWDA) said that ignoring nominee arrangements often causes ‘confusion and sometimes great distress’ for the client.[189] PWDA referred to a situation where a person asked to have their nominee involved. This request was dismissed. PWDA advised that this person had ‘suicidal ideation and was extraordinarily distressed for weeks after the phone call’. While being reassured that procedures exist, PWDA said formal complaints had been made.[190]
  161. Nominee arrangements are rarely changed once in place. Since the Scheme commenced, 178 nominee arrangements have been cancelled. This occurred ‘primarily’ at the applicant’s request. The Scheme Operator may cancel or suspend a nominee, although we are advised that these powers have never been exercised.[191]
  162. We heard from an anonymous survivor who had a poor experience with their nominee, mainly because unexpected changes were made to the redress application form that negatively impacted on their redress outcome. The survivor was unaware of the changes made.[192] The survivor recommended to us that nominees must provide a final copy of documents for the applicant’s review before being lodged.[193]

Deceased applicants

3.163Regrettably, some survivors are deceased before they receive a redress offer. knowmore said that this is a ‘common experience in our work’.[194]

3.164When this happens, the redress payment may be made to their next of kin or the estate (whoever is going to inherit the survivor’s property and money). This depends on when the death occurred and whether a redress offer has been made.

3.165We heard that in practice, the next steps could be uncertain and delay can occur while documents (such as a death certificate) are arranged.[195]

3.166knowmore said:

• Delays in processing redress applications can mean that survivors pass away before they can receive redress.
• These delays can relate to institutions delaying their decision to join the Scheme.[196]
  167. Life expectancy varies depending on your background.
• A First Nations male lives an average 72.5 years. In remote areas, the average is 67.3 years.
• A First Nations female lives on average 76.5 years (71.3 in remote areas).
• Non-First Nations live longer on average: male 81 years; female 84 years.[197]
  168. As of 9 August 2024, around 2035 redress applicants were aged 71 or older.[198]

Footnotes

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

[2]Survivors and Mates Support Network (SAMSN), Submission 7, pp. 2–3; Tuart Place, Submission 17, p. 6.

[3]Darcy Orr, Micah Projects, Committee Hansard, 7 July 2023, p. 5.

[4]Maurice Blackburn Lawyers, Submission 18, p. 6.

[5]SAMSN, Submission 7, p. 2.

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

[7]Tuart Place, Submission 17, p. 18; Darcy Orr, Micah Projects, Committee Hansard, 7 July 2023, p. 1.

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

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

[10]Philippa White, Tuart Place, Committee Hansard, 12 April 2023, p. 14.

[11]Tuart Place, Submission 17, p. 6.

[12]Care Leavers Australasia Network (CLAN), Submission 22, p. 2.

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

[14]Tuart Place, Submission 17, pp. 9, 17.

[15]Relationships Australia, Submission 10, p. 6.

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

[17]SAMSN, Submission 6, p. 6.

[18]SAMSN, Submission 6, p. 6.

[19]SAMSN, Supplementary Submission 6.2, p. 2.

[20]Relationships Australia, Submission 10, p. 4. See also: CLAN, Supplementary Submission 22.1, p. 4.

[21]Aboriginal Family Legal Service WA, Supplementary Submission 8.2, p. 3.

[22]Dr Philippa White, Tuart Place, Committee Hansard, 12 April 2023, p. 9.

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

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

[25]Australian Catholic Redress Limited, Submission 25, p. 7.

[26]Blue Knot Foundation (Blue Knot), Submission 11, p. 10; Blue Knot, Supplementary Submission 11.2, p. 1.

[27]SAMSN, Supplementary Submission 6.2, p. 2.

[28]Aboriginal Family Legal Service WA, Supplementary Submission 8.2, p. 3.

[29]Aboriginal Family Legal Service WA, Supplementary Submission 8.2, p. 3.

[30]Kelso Lawyers, Submission 5, p. 6.

[31]Kelso Lawyers, Submission 5, p. 6.

[32]National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Assessment Framework 2018 (Cth), s. 5.

[33]SAMSN, Supplementary Submission 6.2, p. 2.

[34]CLAN, Submission 22, p. 8. See also: CLAN, Supplementary Submission 22.1, pp. 3, 7.

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

[36]Relationships Australia, Submission 10, p. 4.

[37]SAMSN, Supplementary Submission 6.2, p. 2.

[38]Dr Cathy Kezelman, Blue Knot, Committee Hansard, 7 July 2023, pp. 24–25.

[39]Blue Knot, Supplementary Submission 11.2, p. 1.

[40]Micah Projects, Supplementary Submission 4.1, p. 2.

[41]Lara Kaput, SaySorry.org, Committee Hansard, 20 October 2023, p. 5.

[42]Lara Kaput, SaySorry.org, Committee Hansard, 20 October 2023, p. 5.

[43]Department of Social Services, Supplementary Submission 9.24, response IQ24-000188.

[44]The Women’s Cottage, Submission 12, p. 2; Relationships Australia (NT), Submission 21, p. 3.

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

[46]Blue Knot, Submission 11, p. 5. See also: knowmore, Submission 14, p. 40.

[47]Blue Knot, Submission 11, p. 6.

[48]Blye Knot, Submission 11, pp. 6–7. See also: knowmore, Submission 14, p. 39.

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

[50]Blue Knot, Submission 11, p. 6.

[51]Department of Social Services, Supplementary Submission 9.13, response IQ23-000174.

[52]Department of Social Services, Supplementary Submission 9.19, response IQ24-000174.

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

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

[55]UCA Redress Ltd, Submission 2, p. 1; Micah Projects, Submission 4, p. 4; Relationships Australia, Submission 10, p. 5.

[56]Loddon Campaspe Multicultural Services, Submission 24, p. 7.

[57]knowmore, Supplementary Submission 14.2, p. 3.

[58]knowmore, Supplementary Submission 14.1, p. 3.

[59]Ashley Illma Gore, Submission 48, p. 2.

[60]Blue Knot, Supplementary Submission 11.2, p. 1.

[61]Dr Cathy Kezelman, Blue Knot, Committee Hansard, 7 July 2023, p. 25.

[62]Senator Bilyk, Committee Chair, Committee Hansard, 21 August 2024, p. 5.

[63]Relationships Australia, Submission 10, p. 5.

[64]Relationships Australia, Submission 10, p. 5.

[65]Relationships Australia, Submission 10, p. 6.

[66]An example of a template section 24 letter used by the Scheme is available at Department of Social Services, Supplementary Submission 9.24, IQ24-000190.

[67]Blue Knot, Submission 11, p. 11.

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

[69]Tuart Place, Submission 17, p. 19.

[70]Relationships Australia, Submission 10, p. 5.

[71]Sylvia Skinner, Bravehearts Foundation (Beyond Brave) (Bravehearts), Committee Hansard, 7 July 2023, p.30.

[72]Sylvia Skinner, Bravehearts, Committee Hansard, 7 July 2023, p.30.

[73]Bravehearts, Supplementary Submission 16.2, pp. 3–4.

[74]Dr Cathy Kezelman, Blue Knot, Committee Hansard, 7 July 2023, p. 26.

[75]SAMSN, Supplementary Submission 6.2, p. 2.

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

[77]knowmore, Submission 14, p. 39.

[78]knowmore, Submission 14, pp. 38–39.

[79]Jane, Committee Hansard, 2 August 2024, pp. 3–4; Name withheld, Submission 43, attachment.

[80]Relationships Australia (NT), Submission 21, p. 7.

[81]Relationships Australia (NT), Submission 21, p. 6.

[82]Alison Quigley, Submission 20, p. 1.

[83]Alison Quigley, Submission 20, p. 1.

[84]Gymnastics Australia, response to submission 20, p. 2.

[85]The Hon Amanda Rishworth MP, Minister for Social Services, ‘Participating Institutions Grow Under the National Redress Scheme’, Media Release, 24 August 2023. See also: Gymnastics Australia, ‘Gymnastics Australia Joins National Redress Scheme’, www.gymnastics.org.au/content/gymnastics-australia-joins-national-redress-scheme, viewed 29 August 2024.

[86]Ministers’ Redress Scheme Governance Board communique, 10 December 2021, https://www.dss.gov.au/about-the-department/news/64081.

[87]Ministers’ Redress Scheme Governance Board communique, 29 July 2024, https://www.dss.gov.au/about-the-department/news/69341.

[88]Tuart Place, Submission 17, p. 4.

[89]See: Jan Newman, Tuart Place, Committee Hansard, 12 April 2023, p. 13.

[90]Jan Newman, Tuart Place, Committee Hansard, 12 April 2023, p. 13; See also: CLAN, Submission 22, p. 7.

[91]National Redress Scheme, Who can apply, www.nationalredress.gov.au/applying/who-can-apply, viewed 30 September 2024. See also: CLAN, Supplementary Submission 22.1, p. 9.

[92]CLAN, Supplementary Submission 22.1, p. 6.

[93]Jan Newman, Tuart Place, Committee Hansard, 12 April 2023, p. 13.

[94]Sylvia Skinner, Bravehearts Foundation, Committee Hansard, 7 July 2023, p. 30; Tuart Place, Supplementary Submission 17.2, p.1.

[95]Senate Community Affairs References Committee, Forgotten Australians: a report on Australians who experienced institutional or out-of-home care as children 2004, pp. 258–259; CLAN, Supplementary Submission 22.1, p. 8; Tracie Oldham, Submission 33, p. 1.

[96]Toby oConner, St Vincent de Paul Society, Committee Hansard, 20 October 2023, p. 12.

[97]Tracie Oldham, Submission 33, p. 11.

[98]Tracie Oldham, Submission 33, p. 11.

[99]Tracie Oldham, Committee Hansard, 2 August 2024, p. 16.

[100]Tracie Oldham, Committee Hansard, 2 August 2024, p. 16.

[101]Tracie Oldham, Committee Hansard, 2 August 2024, p. 18; Tracie Oldham, Submission 33, p. 11.

[102]Tracie Oldham, Committee Hansard, 2 August 2024, p. 19.

[103]Tracie Oldham, Committee Hansard, 2 August 2024, p. 17.

[104]Tracie Oldham, Committee Hansard, 2 August 2024, pp. 16–17.

[105]Tracie Oldham, Committee Hansard, 2 August 2024, p. 16.

[106]Tracie Oldham, Committee Hansard, 2 August 2024, p. 16.

[107]Tracie Oldham, Committee Hansard, 2 August 2024, p. 16; Tracie Oldham, Submission 33, p. 15.

[108]Tracie Oldham, Committee Hansard, 2 August 2024, p. 16.

[109]Tracie Oldham, Committee Hansard, 2 August 2024, pp. 17–18.

[110]Tracie Oldham, Committee Hansard, 2 August 2024, p. 19.

[111]Tracie Oldham, Committee Hansard, 2 August 2024, p. 20.

[112]Queensland Department of Child Safety, Annual Report 2006–07, p. 6.

[113]Ashley Illma Gore, Submission 48, p. 2.

[114]Ashley Illma Gore, Submission 48, pp. 2–3.

[115]Ashley Illma Gore, Submission 48, p .1.

[116]Ashley Illma Gore, Submission 48, p. 3.

[117]Department of Social Services, Supplementary Submission 9.23, response IQ24-000168.

[118]Maurice Blackburn Lawyers, Submission 18, p. 5.

[119]Australian Government, ‘Guide to Social Policy Law, National Redress Guide’, version 1.23. Available at: https://guides.dss.gov.au/national-redress-guide/5/1

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

[121]Prue Gregory, SAMSN, Committee Hansard, 7 July 2023, p. 7.

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

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

[124]Darcy Orr, Micah Projects, Committee Hansard, 7 July 2023, p. 6.

[125]Relationships Australia, Submission 10, p. 10.

[126]Dr Cathy Kezelman, Blue Knot, Committee Hansard, 7 July 2023, pp. 23–24.

[127]Christopher Coombes, Submission 30, p. 1.

[128]Christopher Coombes, Submission 30, p. 3.

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

[130]Robbie Gambley, Committee Hansard, 2 August 2024, p. 23.

[131]Robbie Gambley, Committee Hansard, 2 August 2024, p. 23.

[132]Robbie Gambley, Committee Hansard, 2 August 2024, p. 24.

[133]Robbie Gambley, Committee Hansard, 2 August 2024, p. 25.

[134]Robbie Gambley, Committee Hansard, 2 August 2024, p. 21.

[135]Robbie Gambley, Committee Hansard, 2 August 2024, p. 24.

[136]John Rule, Maurice Blackburn, Committee Hansard, 23 November 2023, p. 3.

[137]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.

[138]Department of Social Services, Supplementary Submission 9.23, response IQ24-000171.

[139]Department of Social Services, Supplementary Submission 9.8, response IQ23-000133.

[140]Kelso Lawyers, Submission 5, p. 6.

[141]Kelso Lawyers, Submission 5, p. 6.

[142]Australian Catholic Redress Limited (and others), Submission 25, p. 12. See also: Australian Catholic Redress Limited (and others), Supplementary Submission 25.1, pp. 3–4.

[143]Australian Catholic Redress Limited (and others), Submission 25, p. 12.

[144]Blue Knot, Supplementary Submission 11.2, p. 3.

[145]Anthony Gorman, Australian Catholic Redress Limited, Committee Hansard, 20 October 2023, p.9.

[146]Anthony Gorman, Australian Catholic Redress Limited, Committee Hansard, 20 October 2023, p. 8.

[147]Department of Social Services, Supplementary Submission 9.23, response IQ24-000168. Total found eligible over the same period is 17 071 applicants.

[148]When compared to the total 18 846 applications that have had their outcomes advised.

[149]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.

[150]Department of Social Services, Supplementary Submission 9.23, response IQ24-000168.

[151]Relationships Australia (NT), Submission 21, p. 5; Natalie Wallace, CLAN, Committee Hansard, 7 July 2023, pp. 17–18.

[152]Amanda Whelan, knowmore, Committee Hansard, 21 August 2024, p. 33.

[153]Name withheld, Submission 51, p. 3.

[154]Name withheld, Submission 51, p. 3.

[155]National Redress Scheme, Application for a review of determination, p. 1. Available at: www.nationalredress.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/2024-06/application-review-determination-form-dep-sec-cleared-120424-printable-version.pdf

[156]See also: Department of Social Services, Supplementary Submission 9.8, response IQ23-000150.

[157]Ray Griggs AO CSC, Department of Social Services, Committee Hansard, 21 August 2024, p. 4.

[158]Relationships Australia (Northern Territory), Submission 21, p. 5.

[159]Relationships Australia (Northern Territory), Submission 21, p. 6.

[160]Sylvia Skinner, Bravehearts, Committee Hansard, 7 July 2023, p. 30.

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

[162]Name withheld, Submission 7, p. 2.

[163]Lachlan Stonehouse, Submission 49, p. 1.

[164]Lachlan Stonehouse, Submission 49, p. 1.

[165]Department of Social Services, Supplementary Submission 9.24, response IQ24-000193.

[166]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.

[167]The Department of Social Services advised that figures that are less than 5 have been replaced to minimise risk to the privacy of applicants. Other figures have not been provided to protect this figure when totals are provided.

[168]Leonie Sheedy, CLAN, Committee Hansard, 7 July 2023, p. 19.

[169]The ‘Application for Review of Determination’ form is available on the Scheme’s website. See: National Redress Scheme, ‘What happens after applying?’ www.nationalredress.gov.au/apply/what-happens-after-applying#asking-for-a-review, viewed 23 September 2024.

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

[171]Department of Social Services, Supplementary Submission 9.24, response IQ24-000181.

[172]Department of Social Services, Supplementary Submission 9.32, IQ24-000249

[173]Department of Social Services, Supplementary Submission 9.24, response IQ24-000181.

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

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

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

[177]Redress Act, s. 156 and s. 157.

[178]Department of Social Services, Supplementary Submission 9.24, response IQ24-000194.

[179]Department of Social Services, Supplementary Submission 9.24, response IQ24-000194.

[180]Department of Social Services, Supplementary Submission 9.23, response IQ24-000180.

[181]Department of Social Services, Submission 9, p. 4; Kelso Lawyers, Submission 5, p. 2.

[182]Susy Vaugan, Tuart Place, Committee Hansard, 12 April 2023, p. 9; Kelso Lawyers, Submission 5, p. 2.

[183]Kelso Lawyers, Submission 5, p. 3.

[184]CLAN, Supplementary Submission 22.1, p. 10.

[185]The Women’s Cottage, Submission 12, p. 3; knowmore, Submission 14, p. 38.

[186]Kelso Lawyers, Submission 5, p. 3.

[187]Bravehearts, Submission 16, p. 4.

[188]knowmore, Submission 14, p. 38.

[189]Karen Kobier, People With Disability Australia, Committee Hansard, 12 September 2023, p. 1.

[190]Karen Kobier, People With Disability Australia, Committee Hansard, 12 September 2023, p. 6.

[191]Department of Social Services, Supplementary Submission 9.8, response IQ23-000149.

[192]Name withheld, Submission 38, pp. 4–6.

[193]Name withheld, Submission 38, p. 8.

[194]knowmore, Supplementary Submission 14.1, p. 2. See also: Aunty Glendra Stubbs, knowmore, Committee Hansard, 12 April 2023, p. 4.

[195]Kelso Lawyers, Submission 5, pp. 7–8.

[196]knowmore, Supplementary Submission 14.1, pp. 2–3.

[197]These figures measure the period 2020 to 2022. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare and National Indigenous Australians Agency, ‘Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Performance Framework – Summary report’, www.indigenoushpf.gov.au/report-overview/overview/summary-report/4-tier-1-%E2%80%93-health-status-and-outcomes/life-expectancy, viewed 30 September 2024.

[198]Department of Social Services, Supplementary Submission 9.24, response IQ24-000195.