6. First Nations

6.1Chapter 4 talks about redress experiences. Things said in that chapter are likely to be relevant to this chapter.

Source: Department of Social Services, Supplementary Submission 9.24, response IQ24-000185; Department of Social Services, Supplementary Submission 9.23, response IQ24-000176.

6.2Many redress applicants (about 35% of all applicants) identify as being First Nations. This statistic is much high than the percentage of Australia’s population who identify as Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander (3.8%).[1]

6.3As of August 2024, the average redress payment for First Nations applicants was $93 752.[2] Note that some First Nations applicants also indicated disability and may also be counted in figures shown in Chapter 7.

Barriers to accessing redress

6.4We heard that there are many barriers that prevent First Nations survivors from seeking redress. Further, being able to think about redress may be secondary to resolving other problems such as housing, health issues, substance abuse or family violence.[3]

6.5The Aboriginal Family Legal Service (AFLS) in Western Australia said the barriers to accessing redress include:

• Language.
• Geography and remoteness.
• Other priorities, such as education, housing and health.
• An over-representation in prisons.
• ‘An entrenched fear of government institutions’.
• In remote areas, Internet access is limited, travel is challenging and English is rarely spoken.
• Limited awareness about the Scheme.[4]
  6. Other barriers included:
• Long waiting lists for support services, including for culturally safe support services.[5]
• Disclosure of child sexual abuse can be against cultural practices that prohibit talking. Disclosure may lead to fears of retributions for breaking the rules or because perpetrators hold powerful positions in the community.[6]
• A lack of culturally safe support services.[7]
  7. A lack of cultural safety and limited cultural awareness may pose challenges when looking for suitable services and dealing with the Scheme’s staff. Aboriginal-controlled counselling services are limited.[8] There are also limited translation and interpretation services for First Nations languages.[9]
  8. Micah Projects, a redress support service based in Queensland, said that the redress application process presents many challenges for First Nations applicants. Examples of these challenges included:
• Low levels of literacy mean that many First Nations applicants need help with their application. The form ‘reads like just another Centrelink document’.
• The language in the form is ‘brazenly written’ and insensitive. Applicants do not know what is essential from among all the trauma in their life. They will need ‘extensive’ emotional support with the application.
• First Nations people express things differently to what the Scheme expects and ‘there are a lot of cultural terms used by First Nations people that do not translate to what the scheme is looking for’.[10]
• The institution may have a ‘strong presence’ in the community and, possibly, the perpetrator is still employed at the responsible institution.[11]
  9. Micah Projects also told us that awareness about the Scheme is lower than other population groups and usually depends on spoken exchanges between people.[12]

Establishing responsibility

6.10We heard that some First Nations survivors are ineligible for redress because the Scheme’s decision makers form inconsistent views about the controlling powers once exercised by government departments.

6.11Tuart Place commented on circumstances in Western Australia:

• After 1972, the law gave the Child Welfare Department ‘broad powers’ over First Nations children, but this did not include placing those children into state wardship. Instead, children could be placed with their relatives.
• Although the State ‘controlled every aspect of their lives’, the absence of wardship means that ‘increasing numbers’ of First Nations survivors are being found ineligible for redress.[13]
  12. Tuart Place said that:
• The Scheme’s eligibility criteria mean that Independent Decision Makers ‘are only required to consider the factors set out in redress legislation’.[14]
• Further, eligibility for redress can create a ‘higher bar’ (or standard of proof) than establishing an institution’s duty of care when making a civil claim.[15] As discussed in Chapter 9, redress is meant to be an easier option than making a civil claim with a lower standard of proof.
• In civil claims, establishing an institution’s duty of care, negligence and liability for damages does not depend on a survivor being a state ward.[16]
  13. Separately, Bravehearts Foundation (Beyond Brave) (Bravehearts) said:
• The Scheme’s Independent Decision Makers may not understand how past laws about ‘protection’ gave governments extensive control over First Nations children. Bravehearts said that this has caused ‘discrepancies in decisions’ when those past laws are misunderstood.[17]
• Independent Decision Makers and Scheme staff should receive ‘training… to understand the history of protectionism in Queensland and other states and territories’ and the 1997 Bringing them Home report.[18]

Accessing redress in remote areas

6.14We were told that the challenges and barriers are greater for anyone living in rural and remote communities.[19]

6.15Kimberley Stolen Generation Aboriginal Corporation, a redress support service based in Broome in Western Australia, told us about the challenges they experience when supporting clients in remote areas. For example:

• Staff may need to arrange a small plane to fly them into a community. If this coincides with sorry time or poor weather, the trip must be rescheduled.
• After hearing a survivor’s story, ‘they stay there with the trauma’ and with limited support options.
• Going to Centrelink could take one or two days. For many First Nations people, Centrelink is a ‘really scary place’. Staff will stay with the client to help them.
• There may not be reliable phone or Internet reception, which means communication is paper-based.[20]
  16. The Kimberley Stolen Generation Aboriginal Corporation added that Centrelink ‘don’t know anything about the National Redress Scheme at all’ and there seems to be a miscommunication about their role.[21]

Cultural safety

6.17We heard that the redress experiences for First Nations people will include the impacts of institutionalisation, forced removals and cultural assimilation.[22]

6.18The redress application form asks questions that are traumatic or intimidating to answer. Some First Nations people are fearful of government offices and institutions.

6.19Institutionalisation is where a person becomes so dependent on an institution that they cannot successfully live in the outside world.

• Institutions did not prepare First Nations children for adult life or give them the skills to do something like apply for redress.
• Many are likely to have a disability, chronic health condition or mental health condition.
• Among stolen generations aged 50 or over, 88% did not finish their Year 12 education.[23]
  20. knowmore, a redress legal support service, said that there ‘continues to be a lack of knowledge and understanding’ among Scheme staff about First Nations experiences.[24]
  21. The Victorian Aboriginal Child Care Agency said that the right to self-determination includes giving First Nations people ‘the choice to access services delivered by Aboriginal Community Controlled Organisations’.[25]
  22. We heard that some First Nations applicants avoid asking for help from places where people might know them and could look for alternative services. In small communities, privacy is a concern.[26]
  23. However, Relationships Australia, a redress support service, said that many First Nations people do not regard the Scheme as being culturally safe.[27]
  24. Relationships Australia said that the Scheme should:
• Have an engagement strategy developed with First Nations people
• Take steps taken to create culturally safe practices.[28]
  25. Similarly, the Healing Foundation emphasised that services should be culturally safe, accessible, trauma aware and healing informed.[29]

Which is the right redress scheme?

6.26We heard that many First Nations people who survived child sexual abuse are also stolen generation survivors.[30]

6.27Something we repeatedly heard is that having multiple different redress schemes causes confusion, as ‘some people think they are all the same scheme’.[31]

6.28Separate redress or reparations schemes for stolen generations have differing payments, application processes, identification requirements and support options. The Healing Foundation said that this ‘inconsistent approach across schemes has been re-traumatising for survivors’.[32]

6.29Micah Projects said:

• Each bureaucracy should cooperate when promoting awareness of the various schemes.
• Information about redress should be shared in plain English and in local languages.[33]
• Some First Nations people believe that the Scheme is ‘a scam or somehow related to robo-debt’.[34]
  30. The Healing Foundation said that while the National Redress Scheme is about child sexual abuse, the experience is ‘much bigger’ and ‘there hasn’t been any nationally consistent framework or principles around delivering redress schemes for that experience’.[35]

Checking identity and visiting Centrelink

6.31Survivors are asked to verify their identity when making a redress application, which can mean visiting to Centrelink. We heard that this can be negative experience for First Nations people and can take a long time.

6.32Relationships Australia (Northern Territory) said that identification can be ‘incredibly triggering’ and had a client tell them: ‘I already don’t know my identity because of the abuse I suffered, now I have to jump through hoops to try and prove it’.[36]

6.33knowmore said that the Scheme’s identity requirements should be reviewed because the process is disproportionately impacting on First Nations redress applicants.[37]

6.34For example, knowmore said:

• Verifying identification can mean visiting a Centrelink office, which creates more barriers such as distance and arranging transport.
• Some victims and survivors avoid their local Centrelink office ‘due to heightened concerns around confidentiality and feelings of shame’.
• Centrelink staff ‘do not always have a good understanding of the National Redress Scheme and its identity requirements’ and this has led to ‘mistakes’.[38]
  35. For example, Bravehearts said:
• A case coordinator ‘failed to grasp’ privacy concerns and insisted that a redress applicant, who lived in a remote area, must visit Centrelink to verify their identification.[39]
• The Scheme ‘needs to be more flexible’ and that staff should receive cultural responsiveness training.[40]
  36. Bravehearts and Relationships Australia (Northern Territory) said that in some cases, the Scheme had agreed to alternative options for checking identity. Relationships Australia (Northern Territory) said that the Scheme should establish alternative pathways for verifying identification.[41]
  37. Bravehearts said that some Scheme staff lack an understanding about the privacy concerns of First Nations people in small communities.[42]
  38. The Department of Social Services (the Department) told us that almost all redress applicants 96% of all applications received since the Scheme began to August 2024) have a valid Centrelink Customer Reference number and/or a Department of Veterans’ Affairs file number.[43]
  39. The Department suggested that identity requirements impact on very few First Nations survivors. This is because:
• Over 97% of First Nations survivors from remote or very remote areas have a Centrelink reference number.
• If this number is already confirmed with Centrelink, no further documentation is needed.[44]

Footnotes

[1]Australian Bureau of Statistics, ‘Estimates and Projections, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians’, viewed 29 August 2024, www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/aboriginal-and-torres-strait-islander-peoples/estimates-and-projections-aboriginal-and-torres-strait-islander-australians/2011-2031; Department of Social Services, Annual report 2022–23, p. 119.

[2]Department of Social Services, Supplementary Submission 9.23, response IQ24-000178.

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

[4]Aboriginal Family Legal Service WA, Submission 8, p. 3; Aboriginal Family Legal Service WA, Supplementary Submission 8.2, p. 2.

[5]Australian Catholic Redress Limited (and others), Submission 25, p. 8.

[6]Relationships Australia, Submission 10, pp. 6–7.

[7]knowmore, Submission 14, pp. 37–38.

[8]Aboriginal Family Legal Service WA, Submission 8, p. 6.

[9]Micah Projects, Submission 4, pp. 3, 7; Aboriginal Family Legal Service WA, Submission 8, p. 5. Craig Hughes-Cashmore, Survivors and Mates Support Network (SAMSN), Committee Hansard, 7 July 2023, p. 8.

[10]Micah Projects, Submission 4, p. 3.

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

[12]Micah Projects, Submission 4, p. 3.

[13]Tuart Place, Supplementary Submission 17.2, pp. 1–2.

[14]Tuart Place, Supplementary Submission 17.2, p. 3.

[15]Tuart Place, Supplementary Submission 17.2, p. 3.

[16]Tuart Place, Supplementary Submission 17.2, p. 3.

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

[18]Bravehearts, Supplementary Submission 16.2, p. 2. See also: Australian Human Rights Commission, Bringing them Home: Report of the National Inquiry into Separation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children from their Families 1997, https://humanrights.gov.au/our-work/projects/bringing-them-home-report-1997.

[19]Micah Projects, Submission 4, pp. 4–6.

[20]Tania Bin Barker, Kimberley Stolen Generation Aboriginal Corporation, Committee Hansard, 23 November 2023, pp. 28–29. See also Aboriginal Family Legal Service WA, Supplementary Submission 8.2, pp. 2–3; Relationships Australia (Northern Territory), Submission 21, p. 2.

[21]Tania Bin Barker, Kimberley Stolen Generation Aboriginal Corporation, Committee Hansard, 23 November 2023, p. 26. See also: knowmore, Submission 14, p. 40.

[22]Victorian Aboriginal Child Care Agency, Submission 28, p. 5.

[23]Victorian Aboriginal Child Care Agency, Submission 28, p. 5.

[24]knowmore, Submission 14, p. 40. See also: Bravehearts, Submission 16, p. 3.

[25]Victorian Aboriginal Child Care Agency, Submission 28, p. 6.

[26]Micah Projects, Submission 4, pp. 3–4; Aboriginal Family Legal Service WA, Submission 8, p. 3, pp. 5–6. Relationships Australia, Submission 10, pp. 6–8; Blue Knot Foundation, Submission 11, pp. 4–6; Bravehearts, Submission 16, pp. 3–5; Victorian Aboriginal Child Care Agency, Submission 28, p. 7.

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

[28]Relationships Australia, Submission 10, pp. 7–8.

[29]The Healing Foundation, Submission 23, pp. 2–3.

[30]Victorian Aboriginal Child Care Agency, Submission 28, p. 5.

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

[32]Shannon Dodson, The Healing Foundation, Committee Hansard, 23 November 2023, p. 24.

[33]Micah Projects, Submission 4, pp. 3, 6.

[34]Micah Projects, Submission 4, p. 3.

[35]Shannon Dodson, The Healing Foundation, Committee Hansard, 23 November 2023, p. 26. See also: Victorian Aboriginal Child Care Agency, Submission 28, p.5.

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

[37]knowmore, Submission 14, pp. 39–40. See also: Micah Projects, Submission 4, p. 6; Relationships Australia (Northern Territory), Submission 21, p. 2.

[38]knowmore, Submission 14, pp. 39–40.

[39]Bravehearts, Submission 16, p. 5.

[40]Bravehearts, Submission 16, p. 5.

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

[42]Bravehearts, Submission 16, p. 5.

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

[44]Department of Social Services, Supplementary Submission 9.9, response IQ23-000171.