National Redress Scheme: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Duplicate word removed + ELs from bodytext |
m Rm mass of ELs from bodytext |
||
| (45 intermediate revisions by 19 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
The National Redress Scheme (NRS) |
The '''National Redress Scheme''' ('''NRS''') was established in 2018 by the [[Australian Government]] as a result of a recommendation by the [[Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse]]. It aims to offer redress to survivors via three elements:<ref>{{Cite web |title=National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Act 2018 Section 3(2)(b) |url=https://www.legislation.gov.au/C2018A00045/latest/text}}</ref> |
||
<ref>[https://www.dss.gov.au/national-redress-scheme-for-people-who-have-experienced-institutional-child-sexual-abuse National Redress Scheme, Australian Government Department of Social Services]</ref> Providing the abuse occurred at an institution that has opted into the scheme, abuse survivors may apply to receive a monetary compensation offer and/or psychological counselling. <ref>[https://www.nationalredress.gov.au/applying/what-can-you-apply National Redress Scheme, What can you apply for?]</ref> According to an ABC report: ''“It is estimated 60,000 survivors may be eligible to make a claim.”'' <ref name=":0">[https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-10-20/national-redress-scheme-yet-to-process-bulk-of-payments/10398272 ABC News, National redress scheme yet to process bulk of payments, Oct 23, 2018]</ref> |
|||
* a monetary payment to survivors as a tangible means of recognising the wrong survivors have suffered; and |
|||
==Application Form== |
|||
* a counselling and psychological component which, depending on where the survivor lives, consists of access to counselling and psychological services or a monetary payment; and |
|||
* a direct personal response to survivors from the participating institutions and partly‑participating institutions responsible. |
|||
The [[Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse]] estimated that some 60,000 survivors may be eligible.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Final Report - Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse: Vol 17, Redress and Civil Litigation, page 123. |url=https://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/beyond-royal-commission}}</ref> |
|||
Survivors of child sexual abuse are invited to call NRS to request an application form be mailed to their nominated address or they can create a [[myGov]] account to complete the form on-line. The applicant is required to fill-in details of the assault, the assailant(s), and the institution(s). The 40 page booklet includes a one-and-a-half page A4 space for the applicant to hand-write a detailed account of their experiences of abuse. <ref>National Redress Scheme, Application for Redress form, Question 44</ref> A further one-and-a-half-page space is allotted to ''“describe the impact of sexual abuse across your life”''. <ref>National Redress Scheme, Application for Redress form, Question 58</ref> |
|||
Upon completion of the form, it is to be submitted for assessment, whereupon a reviewer will determine compensation eligibility. The process does not involve face-to-face assessment meetings. Victims of child sexual abuse who are currently in jail are not eligible to apply. <ref>[https://www.nationalredress.gov.au/applying/who-can-apply#step6 National Redress Scheme, Who can apply?]</ref> |
|||
==Procedure and amount of redress payment== |
|||
==Compensation== |
|||
Survivors of institutional child sexual abuse can apply for redress by calling the NRS to request an application form be mailed to their nominated address or they can create a [[Digital identity in Australia#myGov|myGov]] account to complete the form on-line. The applicant is required to fill-in details of the assault, the assailant(s), and the institution(s).<ref>National Redress Scheme, Application for Redress form, Question 44</ref> A further one-and-a-half-page space is allotted to ''“describe the impact of sexual abuse across your life”''. <ref>National Redress Scheme, Application for Redress form, Question 58</ref> The process does not involve face-to-face assessment meetings. |
|||
If an application is eligible the amount of a redress payment is calculated by an Independent Decion Maker under an Assessment Framework that sets out the maximimum amounts for components of redress as follows:<ref>{{Cite web |title=National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Assessment Framework 2018, section 5. |url=https://www.legislation.gov.au/F2018L00969/latest/text}}</ref> |
|||
According to the NRS website: ''“Payments will be decided on an individual basis. They will range from less than $10,000 through to $150,000. Any earlier payments related to the abuse will be deducted from your redress payment.”'' |
|||
{| class="wikitable" |
|||
<ref>[https://www.nationalredress.gov.au/applying/what-can-you-apply#step3 National Redress Scheme, Redress payment]</ref> |
|||
| colspan="7" |Amount of redress payment |
|||
Although the NRS does not provide face-to-face psychological counselling during the application period, successful applicants may be eligible for free counselling: |
|||
|- |
|||
''“If you live in New South Wales, Victoria or the Australian Capital Territory you can be connected to a free counselling service as part of your redress offer."'' |
|||
| |
|||
<ref>https://www.nationalredress.gov.au/applying/what-can-you-apply#step1</ref> |
|||
|Column 1 |
|||
Kind of sexual abuse of the person |
|||
The Redress application form advises: ''“If you accept an offer of redress you need to sign a document that will release the institution(s) from further claims.”'' |
|||
|Column 2 |
|||
<ref>National Redress Scheme, Application for Redress p6, bullet point 16</ref> |
|||
Recognition of sexual abuse |
|||
|Column 3 |
|||
Recognition of impact of sexual abuse |
|||
|Column 4 |
|||
Recognition of related non‑sexual abuse |
|||
|Column 5 |
|||
Recognition person was institutionally vulnerable |
|||
|Column 6 |
|||
Recognition of extreme circumstances of sexual abuse |
|||
|- |
|||
|1 |
|||
|Penetrative abuse |
|||
|$70,000 |
|||
|$20,000 |
|||
|$5,000 |
|||
|$5,000 |
|||
|$50,000 |
|||
|- |
|||
|2 |
|||
|Contact abuse |
|||
|$30,000 |
|||
|$10,000 |
|||
|$5,000 |
|||
|$5,000 |
|||
|Nil |
|||
|- |
|||
|3 |
|||
|Exposure abuse |
|||
|$5,000 |
|||
|$5,000 |
|||
|$5,000 |
|||
|$5,000 |
|||
|Nil |
|||
|} |
|||
==Participating institutions== |
==Participating institutions== |
||
Where child sexual abuse is identified by the Scheme Operator as having occurred in an institution it is approached to participate in the Scheme. Applicants are able to search for participating institutions on the NRS website. <ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.nationalredress.gov.au/institutions/search|title=Search for institutions that have joined the Scheme | National Redress Scheme|website=www.nationalredress.gov.au}}</ref> |
|||
By late February, 2019, many institutions had still not joined the scheme. In response, the Department of Social Services released a list of 100 institutions that had not signed up. |
By late February, 2019, many institutions had still not joined the scheme. In response, the Department of Social Services released a list of 100 institutions that had not signed up. |
||
<ref> |
<ref name="auto3">{{Cite web|url=https://www.nationalredress.gov.au/institutions/institutions-have-not-yet-joined|title=Institutions that have not yet joined the Scheme | National Redress Scheme|website=www.nationalredress.gov.au}}</ref> |
||
<ref> |
<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-02-28/government-names-and-shames-sex-abuse-institutions/10856254|title=Government names and shames institutions yet to sign up to child sexual abuse redress scheme|first=political reporter Jade|last=Macmillan|date=February 28, 2019|website=ABC News}}</ref> |
||
=== Catholic Church participation === |
|||
The Australian Catholic Bishops Conference (ACBC) formed a company called Australian Catholic Redress Limited (ACRL) in 2018. This was done on behalf of the 35 Archdioceses, Dioceses, Eparchies and Ordinariates that covers the vast proportion of Australian Catholics. The ACRL joined the National Redress Scheme in 2018. |
|||
==== Catholic Church participation ==== |
|||
The ACBC also encouraged the various Institutes of Clerical Religious (Priests or Priests and Brothers) the Institutes of Religious Brothers, Institutes of Religious Women, Institutes of Consecrated Life, Societies of Apostolic Life, Associations of Christ’s Faithful, and the Ministerial Public Juridic Persons who are separate entities to ACRL to also join the National Redress Scheme. Those that had involvement with young people have generally joined the scheme. |
|||
There has been confusion over the Catholic Church’s participation in the scheme. According to an ABC report: |
|||
''“In a major backflip, the Catholic Church has announced its entities will enter the National Redress Scheme individually and not as a single church entity as originally planned.”'' |
|||
<ref>[https://www.abc.net.au/radio/programs/am/catholic-church-reverses-approach-to-redress-scheme/10592784 ABC News, Catholic Church reverses approach to redress scheme Dec 7, 2018]</ref> |
|||
In effect, it is now up to individual organisations within the Catholic Church to decide if they wish to participate. Of the Department of Social Services’ list of 100 institutions yet to join the scheme, over half are Catholic institutions. |
|||
<ref>[https://www.nationalredress.gov.au/institutions/institutions-have-not-yet-joined National Redress Scheme, Institutions that have not yet joined the scheme]</ref> |
|||
==Non Participating institutions== |
|||
==Criticism of NRS== |
|||
As of May, 2021, the government Commission lists these 8 institutions as declining to participate:<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.nationalredress.gov.au/institutions/institutions-named-royal|title=Institutions named in the Royal Commission that have not yet joined the Scheme|website=National Redress Scheme}}</ref> |
|||
* Fairbridge Society |
|||
* Gold Coast Family Support Group (now FSG Australia) |
|||
* Hunter Aboriginal Children’s Services (HACS) |
|||
* RG Dance Pty Ltd |
|||
* Yeshiva Centre and the Yeshiva College Bondi – pre 2003 |
|||
* Yeshivah Centre Melbourne (Chabad Institutions of Victoria Ltd.)* |
|||
* Mordialloc Sailing Club |
|||
''Note: * indicates They have stated that they intend to participate at some time in the future.'' |
|||
The National Redress Scheme has attracted criticism from abuse survivors, survivor advocate groups, lawyers, representatives of the Anglican Church, and politicians. |
|||
<ref>[https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-09-16/anglican-church-horrified-over-national-redress-calculations/10236812 Anglican Church horrified over national redress calculation, Sep 16, 2018]</ref> Much of this criticism has focused on the ‘matrix’ used by the scheme to calculate compensation. Whereas the Royal Commission's recommended matrix was based on a 100 point system - 40 points for the abuse severity, 40 for the impact, and 20 for institutional factors - to determine payments up to a maximum of $200 000, the Guardian reported that: |
|||
''“The national scheme ...imposes a hierarchy of abuse in which claimants who suffered penetrative abuse (level 1) are the only survivors who can possibly be granted the maximum payment of $150,000. Even in these cases, the amount reduces to $100,000 (or less) unless there were additional “extreme circumstances”, such as institutional vulnerability and related non-sexual abuse."'' <ref>[https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/sep/03/the-redress-scheme-for-child-sex-abuse-victims-is-unjust-and-damaging The Guardian, The redress scheme for child sex abuse victims is unjust and damaging, Sep 3, 2018]</ref> |
|||
For those survivors who suffered non-penetrative sexual abuse (which may include oral sex), the maximum payout under the scheme is $50 000, regardless of the number of times they were abused, the number of institutions in which they were abused, or the impact of the abuse. <ref>[https://rctlaw.com.au/legal-blog/2018/how-the-new-sexual-abuse-redress-scheme-is-not-working Kate Malone and Ian Dallas, How the new sexual abuse redress scheme is not working. Oct 2, 2018]</ref> |
|||
Tasmania's Anglican Bishop, Richard Condie said: ''"There certainly won't be many people that qualify for the $150,000 because of the way the matrix is constructed.”'' |
|||
<ref>[https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-09-16/anglican-church-horrified-over-national-redress-calculations/10236812 Anglican Church horrified over national redress calculation, Sep 16, 2018]</ref> Lawyer, Dr Judy Courtin described the matrix as ''“grossly unfair and not based on evidence".'' In her Guardian article, Courtin gave the example of a child who was sexually exploited by a priest on a more-or-less weekly basis for five to six years: |
|||
==Criticism== |
|||
''“This abuse also involved physical and psychological abuse. This man, who has attempted suicide on several occasions, has alcohol abuse problems, cannot study or work and lives alone. Because the priest did not “penetrate” this boy, the maximum amount he can be awarded by the redress scheme is $50,000."'' |
|||
<ref>[https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/sep/03/the-redress-scheme-for-child-sex-abuse-victims-is-unjust-and-damaging The Guardian, The redress scheme for child sex abuse victims is unjust and damaging, Sep 3, 2018]</ref> |
|||
The ABC reported that details of the matrix were not made public until after the bill had passed both houses of Parliament. West Australian Greens Senator, Rachel Siewert, said: ''"Many times people asked for the matrix, to be able to see it, to be able to understand the basis on which these decisions were made, but that was not available at the time we voted on the bill."' |
|||
<ref>[https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-09-16/anglican-church-horrified-over-national-redress-calculations/10236812 Anglican Church horrified over national redress calculation, Sep 16, 2018]</ref> |
|||
The NRS has attracted criticism from abuse survivors, survivor advocate groups, lawyers, representatives of the Anglican Church, and politicians. |
|||
Bishop Condie said the Anglican Church tried unsuccessfully to get the Federal Government to make changes to the matrix: ''"We also wrote expressing our dismay about this to the department and also to the Prime Minister (but) we were told right from the beginning that it was a non-negotiable part of the deal."'' |
|||
<ref name="auto">{{Cite web|url=https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-09-16/anglican-church-horrified-over-national-redress-calculations/10236812|title=Anglican Church horrified over how redress scheme calculates payments to victims|first=Airlie|last=Ward|date=September 16, 2018|website=ABC News}}</ref> Much of this criticism has focused on the assessment matrix used by the scheme to calculate compensation. Whereas the Royal Commission's recommended matrix was based on a 100 point system - 40 points for the abuse severity, 40 for impact, and 20 for institutional factors - to determine payments up to a maximum of $200 000, the Guardian reported that the maximum payout of $150,000 was only possible in extreme circumstances involving sexual abuse with penetration.<ref name="auto1">{{Cite web|url=https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/sep/03/the-redress-scheme-for-child-sex-abuse-victims-is-unjust-and-damaging|title=The national redress scheme for child sex abuse victims is unjust and damaging | Judy Courtin and Chris Atmore|first1=Judy|last1=Courtin|first2=Chris|last2=Atmore|date=September 2, 2018|via=www.theguardian.com}}</ref> |
|||
For those survivors who suffered non-penetrative sexual abuse (which may include oral sex), the maximum payout under the scheme is $50 000, regardless of the number of times they were abused, the number of institutions in which they were abused, or the impact of the abuse. <ref>{{Cite web|url=https://rctlaw.com.au/legal-blog/2018/how-the-new-sexual-abuse-redress-scheme-is-not-working|title=How the new Sexual Abuse Redress scheme is not working|website=Ryan Carlisle Thomas Lawyers}}</ref> |
|||
In The Herald, survivor and barrister James Miller called for ''“urgent reforms, including changes to a controversial assessment “matrix” linking financial payouts to types of abuse”'', which he claimed ran contrary to the Royal Commission recommendation for assessment to be calculated according to severity and impact. |
|||
Tasmania's Anglican Bishop, Richard Condie commented the way the assessment matrix is designed would limit payouts.<ref name="auto" /> Lawyer, Judy Courtin also described the matrix unfair and not an [[evidence-based policy]].<ref name="auto" /> Courtin explained in a separate article that the matrix limits payouts for those who were not sexually penetrated to $50,000, even when in the presence of extenuating circumstances.<ref name="auto1" /> By comparison, [[Rebel Wilson]] was awarded $650,000 by the Victorian supreme court for ''"hurt and distress"''<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.theguardian.com/film/2018/jun/14/rebel-wilsons-45m-defamation-damages-slashed-to-650000|title=Rebel Wilson's $4.5m defamation damages slashed to $600,000|first=Amanda|last=Meade|date=June 14, 2018|via=www.theguardian.com}}</ref> in a defamation case against magazine company Bauer Media.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-06-14/rebel-wilson-defamation-payout-reduced-on-appeal/9868300|title=Rebel Wilson's record defamation payout dramatically slashed on appeal|date=June 14, 2018|website=ABC News}}</ref> |
|||
<ref>[https://www.theherald.com.au/story/5693262/overly-legalistic-and-insensitive-survivor-urges-national-redress-scheme-reform/ The Herald, Oct 10, 2018 James Miller says landmark redress scheme risks re-traumatising abuse survivors]</ref> |
|||
The ABC reported that details of the NRS matrix were not made public until after the bill had passed both houses of Parliament.<ref name="auto" /> Bishop Condie said the Anglican Church tried unsuccessfully to get the Federal Government to make changes to the matrix.<ref name="auto" /> |
|||
==== Response to criticism ==== |
|||
In [[The Sydney Morning Herald]], survivor and barrister James Miller insisted for changes to the existing version of the matrix, which he claimed ran contrary to the Royal Commission recommendation for assessment to be calculated according to severity and impact.<ref>{{Cite web |last=McCarthy |first=Joanne |date=October 10, 2018 |title='Overly legalistic and insensitive': survivor urges national redress scheme reform |url=https://www.newcastleherald.com.au/story/5693262/overly-legalistic-and-insensitive-survivor-urges-national-redress-scheme-reform/ |website=Newcastle Herald}}</ref> |
|||
Regarding criticism of lowering the maximum compensation to $150 000, The Catholic Weekly responded: |
|||
''“In truth, if the Commonwealth government had agreed to the $200,000 recommendation, the Church would have stood ready to meet this obligation too. But the government didn’t, because – however distasteful it sounds – the government needs to take into consideration the affordability of the scheme. To do otherwise could lead to unfairness for some survivors.”'' |
|||
<ref>[https://www.catholicweekly.com.au/criticise-redress-fine-lynch-no/ The Catholic Weekly, June 6, 2018, Criticise redress, fine. Lynch? No]</ref> |
|||
=== Response to criticism === |
|||
In terms of projected compensation payouts, it's estimated that 62% of an estimated ''60,000 survivors <ref name=":0" /> experienced their abuse in Catholic institutions. The Anglican Church is next biggest with 14.7%, followed by The Salvation Army with 7.3%.'' |
|||
<ref>[https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-05-30/catholic-church-joins-national-redress-for-child-abuse-victims/9816742 ABC News, Catholic Church joins national redress for abuse victims, May 30, 2018]</ref> |
|||
The [[Catholic Church in Australia]] supported limiting maximum compensation to $150,000, which faced criticism from the legal profession. The Catholic Weekly responded, stating that although this is fair criticism towards the church, they would have followed through with $200,000 payouts if the government did as well, but they believe the government did not due to concerns about funding availability. In response to critics saying that the church only joined the scheme because it reduces their [[legal liability]] and is believed to be financially cheaper than having the church being sued for damages in court, the article claims that the [[Burden of proof (law)|burden of proof]] is also higher for litigation in court compared to the requirements of the NRS.<ref name="auto2">{{Cite web |last=Doumit |first=Monica |date=June 6, 2018 |title=Criticise redress, fine. Lynch? No |url=https://www.catholicweekly.com.au/criticise-redress-fine-lynch-no/}}</ref> |
|||
The Catholic Weekly likened survivor advocates to the character in the Jim Carey movie, ‘Liar Liar’. It added: ''“Despite the countless lawyer jokes that treat ‘lawyer’ and ‘liar’ as synonymous, lawyers have a duty to not mislead or misrepresent.”''<ref>[https://www.catholicweekly.com.au/criticise-redress-fine-lynch-no/ The Catholic Weekly, June 6, 2018, Criticise redress, fine. Lynch? No]</ref> The article concludes: |
|||
''“Those who criticise the Church in relation to redress are obviously free to do so … But those criticisms should be based on facts, not just for fair treatment of the Church, but because it does survivors no favours if – even when significant progress on redress is made, as happened this week – they are told by those supposed to be their ‘advocates’ that once again they should be disappointed.”'' |
|||
<ref>[https://www.catholicweekly.com.au/criticise-redress-fine-lynch-no/ The Catholic Weekly, June 6, 2018, Criticise redress, fine. Lynch? No]</ref> |
|||
==References== |
==References== |
||
{{Reflist}} |
{{Reflist}} |
||
[[Category:Government of Australia]] |
|||
[[Category:Child sexual abuse in Australia]] |
[[Category:Child sexual abuse in Australia]] |
||
[[Category:2018 establishments in Australia]] |
|||
Latest revision as of 12:24, 17 July 2024
The National Redress Scheme (NRS) was established in 2018 by the Australian Government as a result of a recommendation by the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. It aims to offer redress to survivors via three elements:[1]
- a monetary payment to survivors as a tangible means of recognising the wrong survivors have suffered; and
- a counselling and psychological component which, depending on where the survivor lives, consists of access to counselling and psychological services or a monetary payment; and
- a direct personal response to survivors from the participating institutions and partly‑participating institutions responsible.
The Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse estimated that some 60,000 survivors may be eligible.[2]
Procedure and amount of redress payment
[edit]Survivors of institutional child sexual abuse can apply for redress by calling the NRS to request an application form be mailed to their nominated address or they can create a myGov account to complete the form on-line. The applicant is required to fill-in details of the assault, the assailant(s), and the institution(s).[3] A further one-and-a-half-page space is allotted to “describe the impact of sexual abuse across your life”. [4] The process does not involve face-to-face assessment meetings.
If an application is eligible the amount of a redress payment is calculated by an Independent Decion Maker under an Assessment Framework that sets out the maximimum amounts for components of redress as follows:[5]
| Amount of redress payment | ||||||
| Column 1
Kind of sexual abuse of the person |
Column 2
Recognition of sexual abuse |
Column 3
Recognition of impact of sexual abuse |
Column 4
Recognition of related non‑sexual abuse |
Column 5
Recognition person was institutionally vulnerable |
Column 6
Recognition of extreme circumstances of sexual abuse | |
| 1 | Penetrative abuse | $70,000 | $20,000 | $5,000 | $5,000 | $50,000 |
| 2 | Contact abuse | $30,000 | $10,000 | $5,000 | $5,000 | Nil |
| 3 | Exposure abuse | $5,000 | $5,000 | $5,000 | $5,000 | Nil |
Participating institutions
[edit]Where child sexual abuse is identified by the Scheme Operator as having occurred in an institution it is approached to participate in the Scheme. Applicants are able to search for participating institutions on the NRS website. [6]
By late February, 2019, many institutions had still not joined the scheme. In response, the Department of Social Services released a list of 100 institutions that had not signed up. [7] [8]
Catholic Church participation
[edit]The Australian Catholic Bishops Conference (ACBC) formed a company called Australian Catholic Redress Limited (ACRL) in 2018. This was done on behalf of the 35 Archdioceses, Dioceses, Eparchies and Ordinariates that covers the vast proportion of Australian Catholics. The ACRL joined the National Redress Scheme in 2018.
The ACBC also encouraged the various Institutes of Clerical Religious (Priests or Priests and Brothers) the Institutes of Religious Brothers, Institutes of Religious Women, Institutes of Consecrated Life, Societies of Apostolic Life, Associations of Christ’s Faithful, and the Ministerial Public Juridic Persons who are separate entities to ACRL to also join the National Redress Scheme. Those that had involvement with young people have generally joined the scheme.
Non Participating institutions
[edit]As of May, 2021, the government Commission lists these 8 institutions as declining to participate:[9]
- Fairbridge Society
- Gold Coast Family Support Group (now FSG Australia)
- Hunter Aboriginal Children’s Services (HACS)
- RG Dance Pty Ltd
- Yeshiva Centre and the Yeshiva College Bondi – pre 2003
- Yeshivah Centre Melbourne (Chabad Institutions of Victoria Ltd.)*
- Mordialloc Sailing Club
Note: * indicates They have stated that they intend to participate at some time in the future.
Criticism
[edit]The NRS has attracted criticism from abuse survivors, survivor advocate groups, lawyers, representatives of the Anglican Church, and politicians. [10] Much of this criticism has focused on the assessment matrix used by the scheme to calculate compensation. Whereas the Royal Commission's recommended matrix was based on a 100 point system - 40 points for the abuse severity, 40 for impact, and 20 for institutional factors - to determine payments up to a maximum of $200 000, the Guardian reported that the maximum payout of $150,000 was only possible in extreme circumstances involving sexual abuse with penetration.[11]
For those survivors who suffered non-penetrative sexual abuse (which may include oral sex), the maximum payout under the scheme is $50 000, regardless of the number of times they were abused, the number of institutions in which they were abused, or the impact of the abuse. [12] Tasmania's Anglican Bishop, Richard Condie commented the way the assessment matrix is designed would limit payouts.[10] Lawyer, Judy Courtin also described the matrix unfair and not an evidence-based policy.[10] Courtin explained in a separate article that the matrix limits payouts for those who were not sexually penetrated to $50,000, even when in the presence of extenuating circumstances.[11] By comparison, Rebel Wilson was awarded $650,000 by the Victorian supreme court for "hurt and distress"[13] in a defamation case against magazine company Bauer Media.[14]
The ABC reported that details of the NRS matrix were not made public until after the bill had passed both houses of Parliament.[10] Bishop Condie said the Anglican Church tried unsuccessfully to get the Federal Government to make changes to the matrix.[10]
In The Sydney Morning Herald, survivor and barrister James Miller insisted for changes to the existing version of the matrix, which he claimed ran contrary to the Royal Commission recommendation for assessment to be calculated according to severity and impact.[15]
Response to criticism
[edit]The Catholic Church in Australia supported limiting maximum compensation to $150,000, which faced criticism from the legal profession. The Catholic Weekly responded, stating that although this is fair criticism towards the church, they would have followed through with $200,000 payouts if the government did as well, but they believe the government did not due to concerns about funding availability. In response to critics saying that the church only joined the scheme because it reduces their legal liability and is believed to be financially cheaper than having the church being sued for damages in court, the article claims that the burden of proof is also higher for litigation in court compared to the requirements of the NRS.[16]
References
[edit]- ^ "National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Act 2018 Section 3(2)(b)".
- ^ "Final Report - Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse: Vol 17, Redress and Civil Litigation, page 123".
- ^ National Redress Scheme, Application for Redress form, Question 44
- ^ National Redress Scheme, Application for Redress form, Question 58
- ^ "National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Assessment Framework 2018, section 5".
- ^ "Search for institutions that have joined the Scheme | National Redress Scheme". www.nationalredress.gov.au.
- ^ "Institutions that have not yet joined the Scheme | National Redress Scheme". www.nationalredress.gov.au.
- ^ Macmillan, political reporter Jade (February 28, 2019). "Government names and shames institutions yet to sign up to child sexual abuse redress scheme". ABC News.
- ^ "Institutions named in the Royal Commission that have not yet joined the Scheme". National Redress Scheme.
- ^ a b c d e Ward, Airlie (September 16, 2018). "Anglican Church horrified over how redress scheme calculates payments to victims". ABC News.
- ^ a b Courtin, Judy; Atmore, Chris (September 2, 2018). "The national redress scheme for child sex abuse victims is unjust and damaging | Judy Courtin and Chris Atmore" – via www.theguardian.com.
- ^ "How the new Sexual Abuse Redress scheme is not working". Ryan Carlisle Thomas Lawyers.
- ^ Meade, Amanda (June 14, 2018). "Rebel Wilson's $4.5m defamation damages slashed to $600,000" – via www.theguardian.com.
- ^ "Rebel Wilson's record defamation payout dramatically slashed on appeal". ABC News. June 14, 2018.
- ^ McCarthy, Joanne (October 10, 2018). "'Overly legalistic and insensitive': survivor urges national redress scheme reform". Newcastle Herald.
- ^ Doumit, Monica (June 6, 2018). "Criticise redress, fine. Lynch? No".