5. Inconsistent and unfair redress outcomes

5.1The evidence we received described several concerns about the way redress decisions are being made. Examples included:

• Limited transparency around how redress decisions are made.[1]
• Inconsistent or subjective decisions about similar cases.[2]
• Inconsistent calculation of redress payments, including how prior payments are deducted.[3]
• Inconsistent eligibility decisions where a redress application relates to medical procedures performed on a child without their consent, such as virginity tests.[4]
• Inconsistent assessments of whether the maximum redress payment is justified due to ‘extreme circumstances’.[5]
• Unfair decisions that appear to go against the Scheme’s intentions.[6]
  2. Tables 1.5 and 1.6 in Chapter 1 have more information.

Concerns about redress decisions

5.3knowmore, a redress legal support service, said that ‘ongoing and systemic shortcomings’ are having ‘considerable adverse impacts’ on clients, victims and survivors.[7] knowmore said that survivors from groups including care leavers and Stolen Generations are particularly impacted.[8]

5.4knowmore gave us seven concerns they have about redress decisions:

• The lack of procedural fairness for survivors.
• Unfairness and inconsistency in the approach taken by Independent Decision Makers (IDMs) to key concepts in redress legislation — for example, in assessing ‘institutional responsibility’ and ‘extreme circumstances’.
• Ongoing inconsistencies in redress outcomes for survivors.
• The lack of adequate written reasons for redress decisions.
• The lack of transparency and fairness in the internal review process.
• The lack of publicly available information about the Scheme’s quality assurance and/or quality control framework.
• The lack of transparency surrounding the Assessment Framework Policy Guidelines.[9]
  5. knowmore said that while some changes to the decision-making process have been made, they are ‘limited and generally fail to address systemic problems’.[10]
  6. Additionally, knowmore said:
• Where reasons can be understood – noting that ‘often’ the reason is unclear – decision makers may suggest the survivor did not give specific details or that an alternative possibility should be disproved.
• The standard of proof is possibly changing and ‘tightening’ over time.
• This pattern is ‘not something that we can reconcile with the reasonable likelihood standard of proof’.[11]
  7. Dr Frank Golding OAM said that the Minister and the Scheme hold that decisions are made on a case-by-case basis according to the Scheme’s legislation. ‘This allows for decisions to be made in secret with no more than a cursory explanation given to the rejected applicant’, he said.[12]
  8. We heard from a survivor who said:
• ‘I made the mistake of trusting that this Scheme was operating in good faith and allowed myself to dream of possibilities I can never achieve on my own due to disability’.
• ‘Having hope crushed is worse then never having hope to begin with’.
• The IDM ‘searched for a reason’ and found ‘a single technicality’. The Scheme is a ‘luck of the draw… with inconsistent results’.[13]
  9. The survivor added that they experienced an ‘attitude of hostility towards an innocent victim making a genuine claim in good faith’ which ‘is not in keeping with the guiding principles’ in the Redress Act.[14]
  10. The Committee asked Care Leavers Australasia Network (CLAN), a redress support service, whether the redress offered can make redress applicants fearful that they are not being believed.
• ‘Correct’ CLAN said.[15]
• For example, when offered $50,000 in redress, a care leaver said: ‘Is that all I get for being raped by two men?’[16]
  11. Further examples of inconsistent redress decisions included:
• An applicant who absconded and was raped received redress because the institution was found to have had a duty of care. Another applicant, who had nearly the same experience, had their redress rejected.[17]
• Twin brothers at the same mission experienced similar abuse. One received a $100,000 redress payment and the other received $50,000. A review led to this outcome being changed.[18]
  12. Australian Catholic Redress Limited said:
• Both applicants and institutions ‘need greater transparency and consistency’ in the Scheme’s decision-making.
• The assessment matrix ‘continues to be problematic… there continue to be inconsistencies in the decisions made’.[19]
  13. Lawyers who work with an unnamed institution told us:
• The Scheme is also ‘failing institutions because its decision-making process is inexplicable and opaque’.[20]
• Institutions have ‘no available channel’ to discuss their concerns about the Scheme’s decisions on an applicant’s eligibility or ineligibility for redress.[21]
• The ‘extremely low rate of ineligibility should be causing the Scheme Operator to be concerned that fraudulent claims are being found to be eligible’.[22]
  14. Redress applicants were provided with a determination summary and, if requested, a statement of reasons with more detail. In 2024, this changed. The statement of reasons is now shared at the time of the outcome.[23]

Evidence from Joris

5.15We heard from Joris Roell, who said he was sexually abused hundreds of times over 10 years by a notorious perpetrator, at the abuser’s home, at school, at the Salvation Army Boys Home ‘and dozens of other places’.[24]

• When Mr Roell was being abused, the perpetrator lived next door. This fact implied to the Scheme that the institutions did not introduce the abuser. The Scheme found Mr Roell ineligible.
• However, Mr Roell said, the perpetrator had access to children and gained the community’s trust because the local primary school and the Salvation Army supported him.
• ‘So the consequence of that… has excluded me from redress’.[25]
  16. Mr Roell said that ‘for years I was strung along by knowmore saying I was entitled to redress’.[26] He added:
• ‘No survivor of child sexual abuse fits into a perfect box with 5 or 6 sides’.
• The Scheme is ‘a failure’ and without flexibility, that makes the Scheme ‘just as ignorant as those people who ignored their duty of care all those years ago’.
• Mr Roell asked us to change the Scheme ‘to allow people in my situation a valid claim’. He added that ‘paedophiles manipulate every situation possible’ and ‘just because he was a neighbour doesn’t mean several institutions weren’t negligent’.[27]

Evidence from Jane

5.17We received evidence from a survivor, ‘Jane’ (a pseudonym), about her experiences making an application and then being found ineligible for redress.

5.18Jane said she applied for redress in 2020 shortly before her husband – who had also experienced child sexual abuse – then took his own life.[28]

5.19Her experiences included:

• Receiving misleading advice from the Department of Social Services (the Department), including from the Scheme Operator, who is the Department’s Secretary.
• Being found ineligible for redress for reasons that had clear errors.
• Being denied access to those reasons.
• Finding out that the staff at the Department privately ridiculed her redress application and her attempts to ask for reasons.
• Also finding out that the Department had shared sensitive information with third parties of incidental relevance to her redress application.
• Extracting information via a freedom of information request.
• Receiving an apology and concession about mistakes made from the Scheme Operator, after he became aware that Jane intended to give evidence to us.
  20. Jane applied for redress in 2020. After waiting 14 months, she contacted the Scheme Operator at the Department for an update.[29]
• The Department advised Jane that her redress application was ‘looking good’.[30]
• This soon changed. Someone ‘very junior’ phoned Jane to unexpectedly say her redress application would be rejected because ‘you were in the care of your parents’.[31]
• Jane then wrote to the Scheme Operator, who advised that she had not been rejected and invited her to share more information. Further calls from Scheme staff pressured Jane to discuss ‘really difficult, really, really traumatic’ details.[32]
• In December 2021 or January 2022, the Department sent a letter to Jane, which said that she is ineligible for redress.[33]
  21. After receiving the letter with the outcome of her redress application, Jane wrote to the Scheme Operator and asked for reasons for the ‘ineligible’ decision.
• The Scheme Operator responded and ‘assures me that I’ve been sent my decision’. An appeal (or review) process is offered.[34]
• Jane appealed her redress decision in May 2022, which was rejected.[35] As she explained to us, an appeal could not succeed if the decision’s reasons are unknown. The reasons for rejecting the appeal were requested, but also withheld.[36]
• Using freedom of information, Jane requested documents from the Department. Documents were provided but were heavily redacted due to ‘secrecy provisions’.[37]
• From what was released, Jane could see that the Department incorrectly withheld documents. She asked for the searches to be done again.[38]
  22. Meanwhile, in September 2021, Scheme staff were privately communicating with each other. These records show:
• Scheme staff talked about ‘the ineligible we knew was coming’ and ‘a gut feeling it wouldn’t go well for obvious reasons’.
• They criticised Jane for writing to the Scheme Operator ‘and causing us to drop everything’. They say that is a ‘big flex on her part’ and warn each other ‘she always has that menacing edge to her calmness’.[39]
• Without Jane’s knowledge, the Scheme staff secretly recorded their conversations with her.[40]
  23. When eventually provided, the statement of reasons contained basic errors. Jane said that the IDM ‘came up entirely with their own scenario’.[41] For example:

Source: Name withheld, Submission 43, pp. 5–7.

5.24Jane outlined the impacts this caused:

• ‘I park it all. I resign from my job. I spend eight months grappling with the fallout from the redress application’.[42]
• ‘I had somewhat of a breakdown… I got into mortgage stress and arrears… Iwrote to Ministers, including the new PM [prime minister], with no response and not even an acknowledgement’.[43]
• She recalled ‘scouring my laundry’ for a statement of reasons when, in fact, the Scheme Operator and Scheme staff had not sent this document.[44]
• The Scheme ‘ruined my career, my faith in government, my family relationships’.[45]
• ‘My children lost their father, and very nearly their mother’.[46]
  25. Jane added that while Scheme staff had concluded among themselves that she was ineligible for redress, they decided to ‘cast the net’ and investigate her life history.
• Scheme staff contacted a former foster carer and the Australian Federal Police, ‘who had nothing to do with any of these matters’.[47]
• They also contacted the perpetrator’s sentencing panel.[48]
• Jane said that the agencies contacted ‘wasn’t something that I would have consented to, and I didn’t consent to it, in my mind. I was really reluctant’.[49]
  26. Jane also commented on the conduct of the Scheme Operator and the Department:
• The Scheme should have ‘some humanity in the way you approach people and decision-making’.
• Public servants should serve with honour and integrity and ‘going after information about me and how it was dealt with was almost criminal’.[50]
  27. While Jane is aware that Scheme staff laughed at her and made fun of her, blaming them is something she finds difficult to do. Rather, she said that this behaviour is ‘reflective of a culture that has been allowed to manifest’ where those staff are trusted with sensitive personal information but are not properly supervised.[51]
  28. Separately to her redress application, Jane commenced legal proceedings against the state and made a civil claim. She said:
• The state offered her a large compensation payment for sexual abuse that occurred while in the state’s care.
• ‘Clearly the lawyers for the state government viewed me as being in state care throughout my teens’.
• She added: ‘the same care the DSS [Department of Social Services] IDM decided I was not in’.[52]

Response from the Department of Social Services

5.29In July 2024, the Scheme Operator wrote to Jane. In this letter, the Scheme Operator made several admissions:

• A statement of reasons was never provided and ‘the failure to provide you with a statement of reasons was not acceptable’.
• In relation to freedom of information requests, ‘I do not consider that the process followed… was adequate’.
• The conduct of Scheme staff was described as ‘extremely’ disappointing and inappropriate ‘and I have reinforced my expectations in this area’.[53]
  30. We asked the Scheme Operator (Mr Ray Griggs AO CSC) to give evidence at a public hearing and tell us his views about Jane’s evidence.
  31. Mr Griggs said:
• ‘How Jane was dealt with was wrong’ and ‘I again apologise unreservedly to Jane for what she experienced and its impact on her’.
• On 13 July 2024, he ordered an investigation into these matters.[54]
  32. The Department gave us the terms of reference for the external investigation.[55] However, Mr Griggs undertook that the investigation would be completed ‘as quickly as possible’, he would ‘take action’ and brief us on the outcomes.[56]
  33. We asked Mr Griggs how many other cases like Jane’s might exist that are unknown.
• In response, he said he has tried to build a very different culture within the Department since commencing his role three years ago, while not excusing that Jane’s matter has more recently arisen.
• He agreed that the Department had not met the standard of being trauma-informed.[57]
  34. The Scheme’s standard of proof is reasonable likelihood, which is lower than the civil standard of proof, which is balance of probabilities.
• We asked Mr Griggs how Jane could succeed on the higher civil standard but fail to meet the Scheme’s eligibility criteria which have a lower standard of proof.
• Mr Griggs said that he did not know the specifics of Jane’s civil claim.
• He said that the decision maker reached their view independently with information ‘in front of them’ and ‘made the decision that they made’.[58]
  35. The Department advised that the IDM who oversaw Jane’s redress application remains in their role.[59] Further, a Chief IDM reviewed the original decision ‘which affirmed the original determination’.[60]
  36. The Department also told us that they undertook a review of call procedures in late 2021. Instead of calling survivors without warning (as the Department did for Jane), since February 2022, Scheme staff now contact applicants according to their individual preferences and will send a text message to the applicant prior to calling.[61]

Extreme circumstances

5.37The Scheme pays up to $150000 to survivors. That limit includes a $50000 portion reserved for ‘extreme circumstances’.

5.38The Scheme’s rules say that to be extreme, the abuse had to be penetrative and particularly severe. However, as discussed in Chapter 3:

• Many survivors are traumatised and talk about penetration in generalised language.
• Without detail, the survivor could be given a lesser redress payment.[62]

Source: National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Assessment Framework 2018, s. 4.

5.39When told that their applications do not amount to ‘extreme circumstances’, redress applicants may feel like the impacts of the abuse are being diminished.[63]

5.40CLAN said:

• Extreme circumstances are undefined. Redress outcomes are varying to the extent that ‘none of them are consistent’.[64]
• The idea that ‘only penetrative abuse can be considered as extreme circumstances is completely devoid of any trauma-informed principles’.[65]
• Many care leavers are worried that if they ask for their outcome to be reviewed, their redress could be reduced, so they ‘didn’t ask’.[66]
  41. The Western New South Wales (NSW) Community Legal Centre Inc said:
• Extreme circumstances ‘should be removed’ from the Scheme because ‘every successful applicant is entitled to feel that what happened to them was extreme’.[67]
• Redress applicants are not interested in legal definitions about what is (or is not) severe or extreme abuse.[68]
• A universal sum would give everyone the same and avoid ‘compare and contrast’ in the community about who received which amounts of money.[69]

Concerns about redress payments

5.42If someone was given money for their abuse before receiving redress, perhaps from a court case, this amount can be deducted from their redress.

• This is called a prior payment, which reduces (or deducts) the amount of redress money payable.
• We heard that if survivors think that redress is unfair, they may decide that the emotional cost is too high and do nothing, which means that missing out on what they need to move forward.[70]
  43. We heard from knowmore that prior payments are being administered inconsistently:
• Deductions made when the prior payment related to some (but not all) of the abuse experienced.[71]
• Different deductions being made in similar circumstances.[72]
• Unclear calculations and inadequate reasons are given to explain the deduction.[73]
  44. We heard from ‘Wombat’ (a pseudonym) that they received an offer less than anticipated, which suggested the Scheme ‘did not read what was submitted’.[74]
• They requested a review but has had ‘no news’ since January 2024.
• ‘Not as if I have experienced enough, I thought I could put all this behind me, not so, your process did not listen to me’, Wombat said. ‘How much pain and trauma can the process cause?’[75]
  45. The value of money changes over time and the Scheme indexes prior payments.
• Indexation means the money received in the past is counted at today’s value. Survivors may not remember how much they received nor think about the indexed value in today’s money.[76]
• However, the Scheme does not index the money it pays to survivors in the same way. Redress payments in 2024 are worth less than the same money in 2018.[77] The $150 000 maximum payment figure has been the same since the Scheme began.[78]
  46. Robbie Gambley told us about his redress offer and the upsetting impact of indexation. Mr Gambley said:
• The Royal Commission recommended that redress payments should be $200 000 maximum, which got lowered to $150 000.[79]
• ‘But the original indexing was kept’, he said, ‘which I think is grossly unfair. If you lower one, surely you’ve got to lower the other’.[80]
• He was given an ‘absolutely pathetic’ redress offer, which he rejected.[81] He asked for more detail and received an upsetting letter with the deductions listed.[82]
  47. Dr Frank Golding OAM said:
• Money worth $150 000 in 2018 is now worth $180 000 in 2024.
• Government believed that institutions could be deterred from joining the Scheme if payments were indexed.
• ‘Fairness seems only to be an issue for one party’, he said, ‘institutions that voluntarily joined the Scheme when it was cheaper for them’.[83]
  48. More examples of inconsistent or unfair decisions relating to redress payments included:
• A redress applicant disclosed that they had received $120 000 from a prior settlement against an institution. Childhood sexual abuse comprised 7.7% (or around $9240) of the settlement reached. The other 92% of the prior payment related to wrongdoings such as confinement, starvation and torture. The entire prior payment of $120000 was deducted and the survivor was offered $30000.[84]
• In contrast to the above example, a Stolen Generations survivor received a prior payment from a civil case. Child sexual abuse was disclosed during the case, but the prior payment mostly compensated for the impacts of forced removal. The survivor applied for redress and was offered around $100000. This suggested that the prior payment resulted in only a small and proportionate deduction.[85]
• A Stolen Generations survivor had been awarded money from a civil case to compensate for forced removal. Child sexual abuse did not form part of this payment. However, the Scheme decided that it should be counted as a deductable prior payment. In applying the deduction, the Scheme decided that the entire payment from the civil case should be counted. This reduced the redress payment offered to the survivor down to zero.[86]
• A redress support service helped a group of clients who had received prior payments from a class action for both physical and sexual abuse:

• 2 clients received redress payments without deductions for prior payments.
• 3 clients had half their redress payment deducted due to prior payments.
• 1 client had their redress reduced to zero because of a prior payment.[87]
  49. A care leaver was offered $95 000, which is near to the maximum redress offer unless exceptional circumstances are met.

• CLAN found out that $5000 was withheld because the applicant did not specify physical abuse in their redress application.
• ‘Everybody knows that children in orphanages got physically abused’, CLAN said. After an ‘enormous amount of phone calls’ the Scheme revised its offer.[88]
  50. CLAN said that redress payments should be indexed (increased each year to reflect what money is worth).[89]
  51. Data in the table below shows that many redress outcomes are being adjusted due to prior payments. Averages for the whole Scheme are compared with averages for First Nations and disability survivors. Very rarely does a deduction result in the survivor’s redress payment being reduced to zero (nil).

Source: Department of Social Services, Supplementary Submission 9.23, IQ24-000169. Some applications are from survivors who are both First Nations and with disability and are counted in each category.

Child sexual abuse deemed a ‘medical procedure’

5.52We heard evidence that the Scheme’s IDMs have made inconsistent or unfair decisions regarding:

• Child sexual abuse that involved a doctor, someone who claimed to be a medical practitioner or someone who might be a doctor but did not clearly identify themselves.
• Child sexual abuse in medical settings.
• Procedures or routines that amounted to raping and torturing children, such as virginity testing.
  53. Past inquiries have reported on medical procedures conducted in Australian institutions, usually perpetrated on female children.

Past reports on medical procedures and child sexual abuse

5.54In 1999, the Forde Commission of Inquiry into child abuse in Queensland institutions described experiences in a youth hospital from 1971 to 1984. The inquiry report discussed things that included:

• A ‘clear difference’ between how boys and girls were treated.
• Girls could be confined for being uncontrollable or ‘exposed to moral danger’.
• The section for girls operated on a medical model that included ‘regular’ gynaecological exams, sedation (with drugs) and seclusion.
• An ‘open conflict’ between doctors and social workers eventually occurred, because each group had very different views about how to manage behaviour.[91]
  55. In 2004, the Forgotten Australians report on the experiences of children in out-of-home care said:
• All children are entitled to the same standard of care and the way vulnerable children were treated is ‘abhorrent’.[92]
• Painful and humiliating internal examinations were conducted under false pretences, such as promiscuity or hygiene.[93]
• State governments and religious authorities were ‘reluctant’ to accept responsibility and any admissions are ‘heavily qualified and reference is often made to prevailing conditions and standards of care at the time’.[94]
• However, ‘many accounts… of excessive and unwarranted assault or of sexual assault go beyond anything that could conceivably be argued as normal for the time’ and ‘such actions were illegal then and they are illegal now’.[95]
  56. In 2017, the Royal Commission report summarised personal experiences that included:
• Medical procedures and examinations being used to conceal child sexual abuse.
• Children being injured, distressed, ignored and fearful of what could happen next if they resisted.
• Children being forcibly medicated or sedated and then sexually assaulted.[96]

International views

5.57In 2018, three United Nations agencies issued a joint statement on virginity testing:

• World Health Organization.
• Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.
• United Nations Women.
  58. The joint statement says that virginity testing is ‘unscientific, medically unnecessary and unreliable… violates a woman’s human rights and is associated with… adverse health outcomes’.[97]
  59. The World Medical Assembly has set the duties and standards of medical practitioners, such as those found in the Declaration of Geneva (1968).
  60. While the language has changed over time, in 1968, these standards included practising medicine ‘with conscience and dignity’ and that ‘the health of my patient will be my first consideration’.[98]

Evidence we heard is consistent with past reports

5.61CLAN, a redress support service, told us about the experiences of state wards (children in the government’s care):

• Female children were internally examined to check their virginity status and to check them for sexually transmitted diseases.[99]
• This occurred without consent or proper explanation. Nothing about penetrating the female children had a medical basis.[100]
• Whether the people performing these acts were doctors is unclear.[101]
• Girls as young as eight years of age were subjected to these practices.[102]
  62. We heard that female children were internally examined to determine how many fingers could be inserted inside them, something which would be written down in state ward records (by lines marked to represent the number of fingers inserted).[103]
  63. CLAN said that the procedures were ‘state sanctioned rape’ and inflicted upon girls who were state wards or who had absconded (run away). CLAN described these practices as being a ‘systemic’.[104] These practices, CLAN said, were applied to state wards but not to girls who came from ‘good’ homes.[105]
  64. We heard from Reverand Bill Crews, who volunteered and worked at the Wayside Chapel in Kings Cross (in Sydney) from 1971. The Wayside Chapel’s work included helping and caring for children. Reverand Crews said:
• Young girls told him about virginity tests, which he said are ‘morally wrong, illegal… yet the state, in a way, was sanctioning it’.
• He attended a child welfare review committee (or council) that dismissed his concerns about virginity tests.
• There were ‘many practices in that time around children…were wrong then and are wrong now’.[106]
  65. We asked Reverand Crews whether the virginity tests had a legitimate medical purpose. ‘No reason at all’, he said.[107]
  66. Reverand Crews said the label ‘exposed to moral danger’ meant that the authorities could ‘do whatever they wanted’ to girls.[108]
  67. NSW Government statistics from 1964 to 1973 show that each year hundreds of girls, mostly teenagers, were dealt with by the NSW courts for being ‘exposed to moral danger’. Young boys, in comparison, were very rarely brought before the courts for this reason.[109]

Redress outcomes for child sexual abuse related to medical procedures

5.68We heard that some redress applications are rejected because the medical procedure did not amount to child sexual abuse.

5.69CLAN told us that in the context of virginity tests:

• IDMs make ‘subjective decisions’ to accept or reject redress applications.[110]
• Being found ineligible for redress ‘denies… the validity of their experiences and the trauma that it has caused’.[111]
• Redress applications from women who were subject to virginity tests are being rejected because ‘this is not deemed to be sexual assault’.[112]
  70. CLAN told us:
• In relation to ‘state-sanctioned rape… a case-by-case basis rather than a definitive ruling is destined to produce unjust and wrong outcomes’.[113]
• The Scheme ‘expects all this detail from the applicant and yet they deal in vague ambiguities about what they will and won’t accept as abuse’.[114]
  71. Dr Frank Golding OAM said that it is ‘incomprehensible’ that IDMs are ‘given complete discretionary power to reject women who have carried the burden of this brutal practice for decades’.[115]
  72. We heard that the Scheme may view contact and penetrative abuse as being ‘part of the routine of the institution’ when, in fact, these ‘routines’ and ‘procedures’ were used ‘as a way of facilitating abuse’.[116] For example:
• Invasive showering.
• Medical procedures such as sexual health and prostate checks.[117]
  73. Further, IDMs ‘vary too much’ on what abuse is within the Scheme ‘with seemingly no explanation’.[118]
  74. People With Disability Australia told us about a male client who was found ineligible for redress and who must now ‘prove that it wasn’t a medical procedure and that it was sexual assault’.[119]

Evidence from Lorraine

5.75We heard from Lorraine (a pseudonym) about her experience. She told us about being subjected to a virginity test and then being found ineligible for redress.

5.76Lorraine said she had been charged with truancy at age 13 and, following a probation breach, the authorities found her. She was sent to a home in Sydney called Bidura, which temporarily held children while they awaited transfer to another home. While at Bidura, Lorraine was sexually abused.

5.77Lorraine told us her story and what happened:

• She was sent to a room with an adult male and female. Lorraine disclosed to the man that she had been raped and, showing no compassion, he called her a ‘filthy little slut’. They physically restrained her on a table and forced her legs apart.
• The man forcefully put his fingers inside her vagina, then inserted a sharp metal object into Lorraine.
• ‘I told both it was hurting and asked them to stop, but they ignored me and he continued doing what he was doing. I had silent tears running down my face. He was so rough, and I was in so much pain’.
• The man called her a slut again. Blood run down Lorraine’s legs. She was in pain for many hours afterwards.[120]
  78. Lorraine reflected on these events:
• What happened was not explained to her. The adults present did not identify themselves as being medical professionals, although Lorraine assumed that the adult male was probably a doctor.
• She said that this was a crime. ‘I did not give consent or informed consent to what happened to me…A standard medical procedure should not involve this. I was treated violently and aggressively by the man because he viewed me as unimportant, as if I didn’t matter and like I was a slut. … This was not a medical procedure; this was penetrative sexual abuse on a 13-year-old girl’.
• Lorraine has experienced trauma and health issues, with symptoms including pain, burning and itching. She was diagnosed with lichen sclerosus. ‘The trauma from this incident has carried me throughout my life’, she said.[121]
  79. In 2022, Lorraine applied for redress and was found ineligible. We talked to Lorraine about her experience applying for redress and the impacts of this outcome. This is discussed in Chapter 8.

Response from the Department of Social Services

5.80As discussed earlier in this report, while the Department administers the Scheme, each redress decision is delegated to IDMs. We asked the Department:

• How many redress applications related to a medical procedure have been determined ineligible?
• How the Scheme’s decision makers decide whether an act was a medical procedure done with consent?
  81. The Department said:
• Data or numbers are not kept.[122]
• Redress eligibility is determined ‘on a case-by-case basis’.[123]
• Advice from a medical ethicist about virginity testing was received in a report completed in 2022.[124]
  82. We asked the Scheme Operator, Mr Ray Griggs AO CSC, about Lorraine’s evidence. Mr Griggs is also Secretary of the Department.
• ‘You cannot be unmoved by testimony like that’, Mr Griggs said.
• He disagreed with a comment from Committee members that he had done nothing in response.
• ‘Sorry, I don’t agree that we haven’t done anything… The guidance has been updated’, he said.
• IDMs are ‘very clear on dealing with these issues on a case-by-case basis in accordance with that guidance’.
• Further questions about guidance and a report from a medical ethicist were taken on notice (to be answered later).[125]

Jehovah’s Witnesses

5.83We heard that redress outcomes for Jehovah’s Witnesses were uncertain, because the applicant’s abuser could be both a family friend or relative and someone who holds an authority position within the religious organisation.

• Abuse may have occurred, for example, when a religious minister visited the family home and the setting could be viewed as either familial or institutional.[126]
• Further, the loss of documents and records could make instances of abuse harder to verify when survivors seek redress or make a civil claim.
• Finding the correct institution can be challenging.
  84. We asked the Department how many redress applications have named the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Although their answer would be protected by parliamentary privilege, the Department declined to publicly disclose this information.[127]

Documents and records

5.85We heard evidence that in 2019, the Christian Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses (Australasia) ordered ‘the destruction of thousands of files… which may have been used as evidence to support redress applications’.[128]

5.86We were given a letter, dated 29 August 2019, which discussed ‘general reminders about confidential records’ within the Australasian congregation. The letter says things that include:

• After the elders have implemented decisions, ‘there is generally no need for the notes to be retained’.
• Where ‘serious wrongdoing’ has occurred, only a ‘brief summary’ should be retained in a sealed envelope.[129]
  87. The Christian Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses (Australasia) disagreed with the evidence we heard and the portrayal of this letter:
• The allegation about document destruction is a ‘false statement’.
• There is a separate policy for documents relating to child sexual abuse.
• Documents relating to child sexual abuse are kept in sealed envelopes marked ‘do not destroy’ and are ‘retained indefinitely’.[130]
• Most other religious institutions do not keep any records of abuse allegations.[131]
  88. In June 2024, a New Zealand royal commission into abuse in care published a case study report summarising evidence they received in relation to the Jehovah’s Witnesses. This report referred to the same letter dated 29 August 2019 given to us. The New Zealand royal commission concluded that the Jehovah’s Witnesses have an ‘inadequate approach to the documenting and retention of information about alleged cases of abuse’.[132]
  89. SaySorry.org recommended to us that the Christian Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses (Australasia) should be investigated for destroying documents.[133]

Responsibility denied

5.90During the Australian Royal Commission:

• The Jehovah’s Witnesses said that linking family abuse to institutional abuse amounted to a ‘conflation’.[134]
• Files analysed suggested that there are ‘at least 1,800 alleged victims’ and about 1000 alleged perpetrators.[135]
• However, the Royal Commissioners concluded differently, saying ‘we did not, and still do not, accept that the child sexual abuse revealed… has no connection with the activities of the Jehovah’s Witness organisation’.[136]
• The response from the Jehovah’s Witnesses to allegations had ‘fundamental problems’, such as literal Bible interpretations and practices that ‘firmly’ informed their approach to child sexual abuse.[137]
  91. The Christian Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses (Australasia) told us that the Royal Commission report ‘falsely labelled’ the number of victims and that the ‘vast majority of those files related to allegations… in a familial context’.[138]
  92. SaySorry.org told us about their concerns:
• Perpetrators could be a both family friend and a minister of religion associated with the church. The belief system played ‘a big part in who your friends are’.[139]
• The church’s followers comprise a very small percentage of the Australian population (we were advised 0.5%).[140]
• Endogamy (marriage within a limited social group) means that ‘survivors are very often related to their perpetrator’.[141]
• There should be ‘hundreds’ of applications from victims and survivors with a background in the Jehovah’s Witnesses but anecdotal reports suggest that perhaps a few dozen have applied.[142]
  93. In December 2023, the Christian Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses (Australasia) rejected the evidence from SaySorry.org as being ‘so inaccurate’ it amounted to ‘deliberately attempting to mislead the Committee’.[143]
  94. However, in June 2024, a New Zealand royal commission report found that the Jehovah’s Witnesses:
• Had responsibility for children during witnessing activities, pastoral support and care, working bees, organised activities and during investigations and judicial committee processes.
• Conferred authority and trust upon the elders who had children in their care and, in those contexts, children were ‘in the care of the faith’.
• Created barriers to disclosing abuse which increased the risk of abuse.
• Continued to rely upon policies, rules and standards ‘based on passages from the Bible’ to inform their approach to child sexual abuse.[144]
  95. Further, the New Zealand royal commission found an ‘ongoing failure’ within the Jehovah’s Witnesses ‘to recognise that children and young people were in its care’.[145]

Redress applications relating to the Jehovah’s Witnesses, including evidence from Kylie

5.96We heard from Kylie Maxwell, a survivor who was born into Jehovah’s Witnesses and experienced child sexual abuse.

• Her application for redress was unsuccessful (pending review) because the perpetrator was a family relation.
• For the ‘major trauma of my life’, she received the ‘minimum amount’ of redress for separate abuse that occurred within the Kingdom Hall (a place of worship).[146]
  97. Ms Maxwell told us that the Jehovah’s Witnesses ‘operate outside… what is considered a normal religious group’ with an ‘extreme’ reach into family life.[147] She said that the organisation’s structure is family-based and the Scheme’s decision felt ‘cruel and unjust’.[148]
  98. The Jehovah’s Witnesses disagreed. They told us:
• Neither the religion nor the elders have ‘encompassing power over congregants in private settings’.
• There are ‘no consequences’ for making a redress application or reporting child sexual abuse to ‘secular authorities’.
• Assertions to the contrary were described as ‘patently false’ or ‘absurd’.[149]
  99. Ms Maxwell discussed her feelings when completing the redress application and hearing the outcome:
• She had three phone interviews to share information with a support service who helped complete the application. This was challenging, because ‘I did not know what questions would be asked’ and the questions were ‘dredging up a lot of trauma’.[150]
• Things said during phone interviews were ‘picked it down to the bare bones’ to ‘massage my testimony into the prerequisite tick boxes’.[151]
• She described being suicidal when informed about her redress outcome, which came by email from the support service and later in a letter from the Scheme.[152]
• The decision meant ‘the person… and the organisation behind it were not being held responsible. It wasn’t delivered in a way that prepared me for my emotional outfall… I felt on my own again… It’s hard to think clearly’.[153]
  100. Ms Maxwell told us how she felt about receiving legal advice:
• Other Jehovah’s Witnesses who are ‘in a similar situation to me’ have been told ‘there is no point’ asking for redress because their abuse does not fit within the Scheme’s parameters.

• The Committee asked who had been saying that there is no point.
• ‘Lawyers’, Ms Maxwell replied.

• She said that going to lawyer means potentially proving things in court. The Jehovah’s Witnesses are ‘lawyered up to the eyeballs’ and without proof, ‘I don’t see any real point. It’s a David and Goliath situation’ (unequal).[154]
  101. An anonymous survivor referred to the ‘coercive control’ exercised over women within the Jehovah’s Witnesses and how ‘so-called scriptural doctrine’ regulated behaviour in family and public life.[155]
  102. The same survivor shared their redress outcome with us.[156] The survivor was found ineligible for redress. However:
• While the abuser ‘shared my father’s surname, he was never a member of my family’. He did not live in the home nor visit and ‘the only access he had to me was via the church’s religious activity’.
• As a trusted minister of the congregation, he took ‘every opportunity to gain physical access to me and my sister’.
• Parents reported the abuse to the elders and the congregation’s presiding overseer.[157]
  103. Further, the survivor observed a contradiction between the Royal Commission’s findings about family life in the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the National Redress Scheme’s view of their circumstances.[158] They said that the Scheme is making its own assumptions about the meaning of ‘family’ in a way inconsistent with definitions found in social security legislation.[159]
  104. A summary of the IDM’s decision is shown below.

Source: Name withheld, Submission 38.

5.105SaySorry.org added that ‘survivors, lawyers or support services don’t know which legal entities are responsible… and don’t know which entities to name’ in redress applications.[160]

5.106We received information about the Department and their handling of a redress application that named the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Concerns included:

• The application form being altered without consent from the applicant.
• The wrong institution being contacted to respond to the application.
  107. The Department advised us:
• A representative body may be initially contacted to help the Scheme identify the institution/s named.
• Applications remain in their original form.
• Scheme staff would contact the applicant to discuss the complaint.[161]

Response from the Jehovah’s Witnesses

5.108The Jehovah’s Witnesses disagreed with evidence we heard from witnesses during the inquiry. They made a submission (number 41), which explained their views in more detail and a copy is on the Committee’s website. They called the evidence received from other witnesses as ‘outright falsehoods’ and asked us to suppress evidence from publication.[162]

5.109The Christian Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses (Australasia) took legal action to try and prevent the New Zealand royal commission from inquiring into their activities.

• Arguments and issues included that the Jehovah’s Witnesses ‘never provided institutional care for children’ or ‘there was no institutional structure, system, practice or policy by which individuals were taken into care’.
• More legal action followed to try and prevent the royal commission’s report about those activities (the case study report discussed above) from being presented in the New Zealand Parliament and made public.
• The New Zealand courts found against the Jehovah’s Witnesses and rejected their appeals.[163]
  110. We note that two royal commissions (in Australia and New Zealand), in 2017 and 2024, have now doubted or discredited the assurances given by the Jehovah’s Witnesses.
  111. We heard that the Jehovah’s Witnesses have been selling dozens of properties and have a history of moving cash outside Australian jurisdiction, such as giving donations and overseas aid, which suggested a possible attempt at ‘avoidance’ of their financial capacity to make redress payments.[164]

Footnotes

[1]Blue Knot Foundation (Blue Knot), Submission 11, p. 9.

[2]Care Leavers Australasia Network (CLAN), Submission 22, p. 3.

[3]Relationships Australia (Northern Territory), Submission 21, p. 4.

[4]CLAN, Submission 22, p. 4.

[5]CLAN, Supplementary Submission 22.1, p. 7.

[6]Relationships Australia (Northern Territory), Submission 21, p. 4; CLAN, Submission 22, pp. 3–4; Name withheld, Submission 27; Sylvia Skinner, Bravehearts Foundation (Beyond Brave) (Bravehearts), Committee Hansard, 7 July 2023, p. 30.

[7]knowmore, Submission 14, p. 16.

[8]knowmore, Submission 14, p. 17.

[9]knowmore, Submission 14, p. 16.

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

[11]Sean Bowes, knowmore, Committee Hansard, 21 August 2024, p. 32.

[12]Dr Frank Golding OAM, Submission 47, p. 9.

[13]Name withheld, Submission 51, p. 2.

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

[15]Leonie Sheedy, CLAN, Committee Hansard, 7 July 2023, pp. 19, 21.

[16]Leonie Sheedy, CLAN, Committee Hansard, 7 July 2023, p. 20.

[17]CLAN, Supplementary Submission 22.1, pp. 8–9; Natalie Wallace, CLAN, Committee Hansard, 7 July 2023, p. 18.

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

[19]Australian Catholic Redress Limited (and others), Submission 25, pp. 11–12.

[20]StevensVuaran Lawyers, Submission 35, p. 2.

[21]StevensVuaran Lawyers, Submission 35, p. 3.

[22]StevensVuaran Lawyers, Submission 35, p. 3.

[23]Ray Griggs AO CSC, Department of Social Services, Committee Hansard, 21 August 2024, p.2.

[24]Joris Roell, Submission 50, p. 1.

[25]Joris Roell, Submission 50, p. 1.

[26]Joris Roell, Submission 50, p. 1.

[27]Joris Roell, Submission 50, p. 2.

[28]Name withheld, Submission 43, p. 6.

[29]Jane, Committee Hansard, 2 August 2024, p. 1.

[30]Jane, Committee Hansard, 2 August 2024, p. 2.

[31]Jane, Committee Hansard, 2 August 2024, p. 2.

[32]Jane, Committee Hansard, 2 August 2024, p. 2.

[33]Jane, Committee Hansard, 2 August 2024, p. 2; Name withheld, Submission 43, attachment.

[34]Jane, Committee Hansard, 2 August 2024, p. 3.

[35]Name withheld, Submission 43, p. 3.

[36]Jane, Committee Hansard, 2 August 2024, p. 3.

[37]Name withheld, Submission 43, p. 3.

[38]Name withheld, Submission 43, p. 4.

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

[40]Name withheld, Submission 43, p. 7; Jane, Committee Hansard, 2 August 2024, p. 4.

[41]Name withheld, Submission 43, p. 5.

[42]Jane, Committee Hansard, 2 August 2024, p. 3.

[43]Name withheld, Submission 43, p. 3.

[44]Jane, Committee Hansard, 2 August 2024, p. 5.

[45]Name withheld, Submission 43, p. 6.

[46]Name withheld, Submission 43, p. 8.

[47]Name withheld, Submission 43, p. 6.

[48]Name withheld, Submission 43, p. 6.

[49]Jane, Committee Hansard, 2 August 2024, p. 5.

[50]Jane, Committee Hansard, 2 August 2024, p. 5.

[51]Name withheld, Submission 43, p. 6.

[52]Name withheld, Submission 43, p. 7.

[53]Name withheld, Submission 43, attachment.

[54]Ray Griggs AO CSC, Department of Social Services, Committee Hansard, 21 August 2024, pp. 1–2.

[55]Department of Social Services, Supplementary Submission 9.18, attachment C.

[56]Ray Griggs AO CSC, Department of Social Services, Committee Hansard, 21 August 2024, p. 3.

[57]Ray Griggs AO CSC, Department of Social Services, Committee Hansard, 21 August 2024, pp. 1–2.

[58]Ray Griggs AO CSC, Department of Social Services, Committee Hansard, 21 August 2024, p. 5.

[59]Bronwyn Worswick, Department of Social Services, Committee Hansard, 21 August 2024, p. 5.

[60]Department of Social Services, Supplementary Submission 9.23, response IQ24-000157.

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

[62]Survivors and Mates Support Network, Supplementary Submission 6.2, p. 2.

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

[64]Natalie Wallace, CLAN, Committee Hansard, 7 July 2023, p. 19.

[65]CLAN, Submission 22, p. 3.

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

[67]Western NSW Community Legal Centre Inc, Supplementary Submission 15.1, pp. 2–3.

[68]Western NSW Community Legal Centre Inc, Supplementary Submission 15.1, pp. 2–3.

[69]Larissa Connolly, Western NSW Community Legal Centre, Committee Hansard, 23 November 2023, p. 41.

[70]Relationships Australia (Northern Territory), Submission 21, p. 4.

[71]knowmore, Submission 14, p. 21.

[72]knowmore, Submission 14, p. 21.

[73]knowmore, Submission 14, p. 42.

[74]Wombat, Submission 54, p. 1.

[75]Wombat, Submission 54, p. 1.

[76]Tuart Place, Submission 17, p. 10. See also: knowmore, Submission 14, p. 20.

[77]CLAN, Supplementary Submission 22.1, p. 1; see also Name withheld, Submission 45, p. 2.

[78]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

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

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

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

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

[83]Dr Frank Golding OAM, Submission 47, p. 9.

[84]Name withheld, Submission 7, p. 1.

[85]knowmore, Submission 14, p. 43.

[86]knowmore, Submission 14, pp. 43–44.

[87]Relationships Australia (Northern Territory), Submission 21, p. 4.

[88]Leonie Sheedy, CLAN, Committee Hansard, 7 July 2023, p. 20.

[89]CLAN, Supplementary Submission 22.1, p. 4.

[90]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.

[91]Leneen Forde AC, Report of the Inquiry into Abuse of Children in Queensland Institutions 1999, pp. 153–57.

[92]Senate Community Affairs References Committee, Forgotten Australians: a report on Australians who experienced institutional or out-of-home care as children 2004, p. 140.

[93]Senate Community Affairs References Committee, Forgotten Australians: a report on Australians who experienced institutional or out-of-home care as children 2004, p. 86.

[94]Senate Community Affairs References Committee, Forgotten Australians: a report on Australians who experienced institutional or out-of-home care as children 2004, p. 182.

[95]Senate Community Affairs References Committee, Forgotten Australians: a report on Australians who experienced institutional or out-of-home care as children 2004, p. 186.

[96]Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, Final Report Volume 11: Historical Residential Institutions 2017, pp. 71–73.

[97]World Health Organization, ‘Eliminating Virginity Testing: An Interagency Statement’, October 2018, document WHO/RHR/18.15, www.who.int/publications/i/item/WHO-RHR-18.15.

[98]Declaration of Geneva, August 1968. Available at: www.wma.net/policies-post/wma-declaration-of-geneva/

[99]CLAN, Submission 22, p. 4.

[100]CLAN, Submission 22, p. 4.

[101]CLAN, Supplementary Submission 22.1, p. 8.

[102]Leonie Sheedy, CLAN, Committee Hansard, 7 July 2023, p. 18.

[103]CLAN, Submission 22, p. 4. See also: Rev Bill Crews, Bill Crews Foundation, Committee Hansard, 23 November 2023, p. 48.

[104]CLAN, Submission 22, p. 4.

[105]CLAN, Submission 22, p. 4.

[106]Rev Bill Crews, Bill Crews Foundation, Committee Hansard, 23 November 2023, p. 48.

[107]Rev Bill Crews, Bill Crews Foundation, Committee Hansard, 23 November 2023, p. 49.

[108]Rev Bill Crews, Bill Crews Foundation, Committee Hansard, 23 November 2023, p. 49.

[109]NSW Department of Child Welfare and Social Welfare, Annual Report 1973, p. 42 (see table 6A; table 6B).

[110]CLAN, Submission 22, p. 4.

[111]CLAN, Submission 22, p. 5.

[112]Leonie Sheedy, CLAN, Committee Hansard, 7 July 2023, p. 18.

[113]CLAN, Supplementary Submission 22.1, p. 11.

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

[115]Dr Frank Golding OAM, Submission 47, p. 10.

[116]Name withheld, Submission 45, p. 2.

[117]Name withheld, Submission 45, p. 2.

[118]Name withheld, Submission 45, p. 2.

[119]Karen Kobier, People With Disability Australia, Committee Hansard, 12 September 2023, p. 7.

[120]Lorraine, Committee Hansard, 2 August 2024, p. 7.

[121]Lorraine, Committee Hansard, 2 August 2024, p. 8.

[122]Department of Social Services, Supplementary Submission 9.8, response IQ23-000134; Supplementary Submission 9.19, response IQ24-000172.

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

[124]Mark Harrigan, Department of Social Services, Committee Hansard, 21 August 2024, p. 7.

[125]Ray Griggs AO CSC, Department of Social Services, Committee Hansard, 21 August 2024, pp. 9–10.

[126]Steven Unthank, SaySorry.org, Committee Hansard, 20 October 2023, p. 2.

[127]Department of Social Services, Submission 9.12, IQ24-000011.

[128]Lara Kaput, SaySorry.org, Committee Hansard, 20 October 2023, p. 2.

[129]SaySorry.org, Supplementary Submission 37.2, attachment.

[130]Christian Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses (Australasia), response to Supplementary Submissions 37.1 and 37.2.

[131]Christian Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses (Australasia), Submission 41, p. 8.

[132]Abuse in Care: Royal Commission of Inquiry, ‘Jehovah’s Witnesses Case Study’, June 2024, p. 50.

[133]SaySorry.org, Supplementary Submission 37.3, p. 1.

[134]Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, Final Report Volume 16: Religious Institutions Book 3 2017, p. 80.

[135]Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, Final Report Volume 16: Religious Institutions Book 3 2017, pp. 79, 107.

[136]Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, Final Report Volume 16: Religious Institutions Book 3 2017, p. 80.

[137]Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, Final Report Volume 16: Religious Institutions Book 3 2017, pp. 100, 107–108.

[138]Christian Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses (Australasia), Submission 41, p. 7.

[139]Steven Unthank, SaySorry.org, Committee Hansard, 20 October 2023, p. 2.

[140]Lara Kaput, SaySorry.org, Committee Hansard, 20 October 2023, p. 4.

[141]Lara Kaput, SaySorry.org, Committee Hansard, 20 October 2023, p. 4.

[142]Lara Kaput, SaySorry.org, Committee Hansard, 20 October 2023, p. 2. See also: Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, Final Report Volume 16: Religious Institutions Book 3 2017, p. 79.

[143]Christian Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses (Australasia), Submission 41, p. 1.

[144]Abuse in Care: Royal Commission of Inquiry, ‘Jehovah’s Witnesses Case Study’, June 2024, p. 57.

[145]Abuse in Care: Royal Commission of Inquiry, ‘Jehovah’s Witnesses Case Study’, June 2024, pp. 5–6.

[146]Kylie Maxwell, private capacity, Committee Hansard, 23 November 2023, p. 42.

[147]Kylie Maxwell, private capacity, Committee Hansard, 23 November 2023, p. 42.

[148]Kylie Maxwell, private capacity, Committee Hansard, 23 November 2023, p. 43.

[149]Christian Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses (Australasia), Submission 41, pp. 4–5.

[150]Kylie Maxwell, private capacity, Committee Hansard, 23 November 2023, p. 46.

[151]Kylie Maxwell, private capacity, Committee Hansard, 23 November 2023, p. 47.

[152]Kylie Maxwell, private capacity, Committee Hansard, 23 November 2023, p. 44.

[153]Kylie Maxwell, private capacity, Committee Hansard, 23 November 2023, p. 44.

[154]Kylie Maxwell, private capacity, Committee Hansard, 23 November 2023, p. 45.

[155]Name withheld, Submission 38, p. 1.

[156]Name withheld, Submission 38.

[157]Name withheld, Submission 38, pp. 2–3.

[158]Name withheld, Submission 38, p. 2.

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

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

[161]John Riley, Department of Social Services, Committee Hansard, 21 August 2024, pp. 7–8.

[162]Christian Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses (Australasia), response to Supplementary Submissions 37.1 and 37.2.

[163]Christian Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses (Australasia) Limited v Royal Commission of Inquiry into Historical Abuse in State Care and in the Care of Faith-based Institutions [2024] NZCA 128 [24 April 2024]; and Christian Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses (Australasia) Limited v Royal Commission of Inquiry into Historical Abuse in State Care and in the Care of Faith-based Institutions [2024] NZCA 340 [23 July 2024].

[164]SaySorry.org, Supplementary Submission 37.3, pp. 3–4.