Labor says Coalition has botched child abuse redress scheme after $610m budget shortfall revealed

The government claims payments so far point to ‘a more even spread of applications’ over the scheme’s 10-year life

Shadow social services minister Linda Burney
Linda Burney says 60,000 child sexual abuse survivors are estimated to be eligible for the national redress scheme, but just 2,250 had been paid by June. Photograph: Joel Carrett/AAPElias Visontay@EliasVisontaySun 26 Jul 2020 06.00 AEST

Labor is accusing the Morrison government of framing issues with the national child abuse redress scheme as budget “savings”, after the government revealed it expects to spend $610m less on payments to victims over the next two years.

The financial figures indicating the National Redress Scheme for survivors of institutional child sexual abuse has not delivered as previously expected come as the scheme falls about 12,500 applications short of the amount the royal commission believed would have been lodged by now.

In its budget update released last week, under the “major decreases in payments” section, the government explains the $610m decrease in payments to the fiscal year 2020-21 “largely reflects a re-profiling of expenditure due to slower than expected uptake by survivors accessing redress”.

The government said there had also been “an associated downward re-profiling of the expected receipts received from the institutions liable for the payments”, noting that once redress offers are accepted by victims, payments are generally made to them within a week.

While the government defends this as an indication survivor applications will be more spread out over the scheme’s 10-year window, Labor believes it demonstrates decision-making delays and poor processes plaguing the scheme, which echoes advocates’ concerns earlier this month that child sexual abuse survivors are still being re-traumatised because of shortcomings in scheme.

The opposition’s social services spokeswoman, Linda Burney, said the reduction in spending on redress payments was because “the government has botched the implementation” of the scheme.Government threatens to name ‘reprehensible’ institutions that don’t join child sex abuse redress schemeRead more

Burney said that while the royal commission into institutional child sexual abuse had estimated 60,000 survivors would be eligible for the scheme, just 2,250 applications had been processed and victims paid out by the end of May.Advertisementhttps://tpc.googlesyndication.com/safeframe/1-0-37/html/container.html

“At this rate it will take around 50 years for the total estimated number of survivors to receive redress,” Burney said.

“This is the latest insult for survivors who have already waited too long for redress.”

She said that in the more than two years the scheme had been operating, “survivors have been reporting poor processes, unfair and inconsistent decision making, inadequate payments and chronic delays”.

“The National Redress Scheme is meant to deliver justice for survivors, not savings for governments and institutions.

“The scheme simply isn’t working as planned – thousands of people who deserve justice simply aren’t coming forward and the government needs to fix it,” she said.

However, the minister for social services, Anne Ruston, said “this is not a budget saving”, and the $610m reduction in spending on payments was instead an indication there would now be “a more even spread of applications lodged” over the 10-year life of the scheme.

“When the scheme was first set up we believed, based on the advice of the royal commission, that in 2019-20 and 2020-21 we would have received about 20,000 applications. However, we instead received about 7,500 applications.

“Our original forecasts estimated that there would be a large number of applications received in the first few years … This is why the budget papers refer to reprofiling.

“Importantly, this is not a budget saving. The way the scheme works is that the commonwealth pays out redress payments once a survivor has accepted their offer and then the commonwealth recoups the payment from the relevant institutions later.”

Ruston said the government had “not shied away from the fact that the scheme is not perfect”, but said there were “various reasons applications may have come in more slowly than first assumed”.

“This may include that fact that it has taken some time to get all relevant institutions on board as well as the changes that have been made to the statute of limitations related to child sexual abuse in most states and territories since the scheme commenced,” she said.

The Guardian understands that at the end of June, 2,726 victims had received payments, while 350 cases had been processed in the first year of the scheme.

The average payment under the scheme has so far been $82,000.

The change in expected spending on the scheme comes after the federal government banned federal funding and threatened the charitable status of six groups that refused to notify of their intention to join the two-year window that ended on 30 June 2020. Since then, the number of institutions has reduced to four.


RETRIEVED https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/jul/26/labor-says-coalition-has-botched-child-abuse-redress-scheme-after-610m-budget-shortfall-revealed

Ministers Redress Scheme Governance Board Communique

27 November 2020

Icon from DSS (2020)

On Friday, 27 November 2020, the Minister for Families and Social Services, Senator the Hon Anne Ruston, hosted the Ministers’ Redress Scheme Governance Board (Board) meeting of relevant Ministers with responsibility for the National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse (the Scheme) in their state or territory.

Ministers acknowledged the significant improvement made by the Scheme to process applications, and agreed that finalisation of applications for survivors must continue to be expedited.

As at 20 November 2020, 4,260 applications had been finalised, including 4,221 payments made, totalling around $350 million, with an average payment of around $83,000. There are 303 non-government institutions covering more than 54,050 sites. 

There were 158 institutions named in applications or in the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse that committed to join the Scheme by 31 December 2020 and most are on track.  Ministers agreed that on 4 January 2021, the Commonwealth would publicly name those institutions which had failed to join by 31 December 2020. This would be the second group of institutions publicly named following the initial naming, which occurred on 1 July 2020.  The Board noted the ongoing work of Minister Ruston and the department in working with institutions to join the Scheme before 31 December 2020.

As agreed by the Board in April 2020, any institution that does not join the Scheme by the relevant deadline may face financial consequences applied by State, Territory or Commonwealth governments.  The Board is committed to taking necessary steps to maximise institutional participation so survivors can access redress.

Ministers supported the work underway by the Commonwealth to remove the charitable status of those institutions who have been named as failing to join the Scheme. This includes introducing legislation this year, which amends the definition of a basic religious charity in the Australian Charities and Not-for-Profits Commission Act 2012 to remove a religious institution’s eligibility to be classified as a basic religious charity if it has been named in an application but refuses to join the Scheme.

Ministers welcomed the update provided by Ms Robyn Kruk AO, the Independent Reviewer of the second anniversary review of the Scheme. Ms Kruk advised the meeting on the progress of the review. More than 70 consultations have been undertaken with stakeholders, including with survivors and survivor advocacy groups, states and territories, non-government institutions and support services. A number of these consultations have included discussions with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander survivors. The review called for written submissions between July and September and 177 submissions have been received to date. Ms Kruk’s final report is due by the end of February 2021. 

Ministers agreed the future priorities for the Board will include considering the recommendations from the second anniversary review, implementing improvements to the Scheme for survivors and on-boarding institutions to the Scheme as quickly as possible.


RETRYEVED https://www.dss.gov.au/about-the-department/news/62511

National Redress Scheme – Newsletter


National Redress Scheme – Update

21 October 2020
This newsletter gives an update on the National Redress Scheme (the Scheme). It covers the launch of new Scheme resources, a second anniversary review update and recent data.

The update contains material that could be confronting or distressing. Sometimes words or images can cause sadness or distress or trigger traumatic memories, particularly for people who have experienced past abuse or childhood trauma. 

Support is available to help you if you need it. To find out more, go to www.nationalredress.gov.au/support.

If you need immediate support, 24-hour telephone assistance is available through:


Improvements to the National Redress Scheme

The Australian Government is committed to continually improving the Scheme for survivors.

Announced in the 2020-21 Budget, a further $104.6 million will be invested in the Scheme to improve and stabilise the operation of the Scheme and better support survivors to ensure the Scheme meets their expectations.

Redress Support Services play a critical role in providing timely, trauma-informed and culturally appropriate support to survivors. This includes providing emotional support for survivors, as well as practical support to complete an application and interact with the Scheme.

The department is aware that several Redress Support Services are experiencing increased demand. This funding will minimise the number of people applying without support and ensure that appropriate assistance is available to survivors.


Institutions

The Scheme is continuously working with institutions that have been named in applications or identified by other means to encourage them to join and participate in the Scheme.  To date the Commonwealth, all state and territory governments and 288 non-government institutions covering around 53,300 sites such as churches, schools, homes, charities and community groups across Australia are participating.

A further 117 institutions have committed to join and finalise on-boarding by no later than 31 December 2020.

For the latest information about institutions, visit our website: https://www.nationalredress.gov.au/institutions

National Redress Scheme Review Feedback Study

The National Redress Scheme review is seeking responses from survivors and support services, carers and advocates to a feedback study on experiences with the Scheme and especially with the application process.

The findings from this study will inform the findings of the review and are therefore very significant.  The study is being conducted by the University of New South Wales and is confidential.  The review needs your input to inform its findings and recommendations to improve the operation of the Scheme.  There is one for survivors and the second is for survivor supports including advocates, carers, family members and support services.  Please have your say.  The study is open until 23 October 2020 and links to the study are as follows:


Application progress as at 9 October 2020

As at 9 October 2020, the Scheme:

  • had received 8297 applications
  • had made 4670 decisions, including 3826 payments totalling approximately $315.1 million
  • had made 615 offers of redress, which are currently with applicants to consider
  • was processing 3215 applications.

Find out more

To find out more about the Scheme, go to www.nationalredress.gov.au or call
1800 737 377 from Australia or +61 3 6222 3455 from overseas.


RETRIEVED 21st Oct 2020, via eMail

Visible Project

Improving health and wellbeing with adult survivors of child sexual abuse.

Yes, our RCbbc Blog has signed their Policy Statement & as such, we’ll be Sharing much of our parallel beliefs. Starting with the logo + goal.

Our goal is simple: we want to improve health and wellbeing outcomes for adult survivors of child sexual abuse. 

At Visible, we are a catalyst for health and social care services system change across Leeds and beyond. We encourage, shape and instigate this change, using the experience of survivors to influence every aspect of the way we work.

Check out their site: https://visibleproject.org.uk

ANTHONY KIM BRISBANE BUCHANAN – Sentence

DISTRICT COURT

CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

JUDGE BOTTING

Ex officio indictment

THE QUEEN

v.

ANTHONY KIM BUCHANAN ..

BRISBANE

DATE 26/04/2002

SENTENCE

HIS HONOUR: Anthony Kim Buchanan, you have pleaded guilty before me today to more than 30 offences involving the indecent treatment in various ways of young children who were in many respects in your care. Those offences appear to have commenced in 1980 and continued as late as the year 2000. During that time you were employed either as a teacher or as a personal development staff member at private schools of good fame and reputation in this area.

So far as the offences are concerned, they have been described to me in a convenient format in the schedule which has been tendered, and the learned Crown Prosecutor has touched briefly upon them.

I do not intend to dwell upon them. It can be said of them that they demonstrated on your part degrading and humiliating conduct towards the children who were the complainants. I think there is force in your counsel’s submission that with perhaps the exception of count 19 and 33 the offences involved largely exhibitionism and masochism by yourself.

In fairness I think if has to be said that the conduct described is in many respects not as horrendous as some of the descriptions that are commonly given in these types of cases, but having said that, of course, I repeat that they can only be regarded as most serious offences of a most degrading and humiliating kind.

The offences, of course, as I have just indicated, I regard as being very serious ones. What it seems to me compounds them very significantly in this case is the breach of trust that was involved with each of these offences. I think that is a very significant element to take into account on this occasion. That breach of trust is all the more exaggerated, it seems to me, if that is the right expression, by the fact that you were clearly not only a teacher of these children but you were one who was highly respected by the parents and by no doubt your colleagues at the schools at which you were employed.

Indeed, your role appears to be a greater one than merely a teacher. You were in some ways, it would seem, a counsellor to the student. Indeed, I think that was the capacity of your later employment, not only to the students but to their families and it was the trust implicit in such positions which was so terribly betrayed by you when you committed these offences. As I say, I do not intend to dwell on the offences. Their enormity speaks for itself.

The purposes of punishment are many, but it seems to me the most significant factors for me to take into account today are first the need to protect society. Secondly, the need to deter you from like offending in the future. Thirdly, the need to deter others who might be inclined or tempted to commit like offences in the future. Fourthly, I regard the denunciatory effect of sentencing, the need to state quite clearly and unequivocally society’s condemnation of this type of conduct.

As I say, they seem to me to be the most significant aspects of the punishment that I must impose to take into account, and I do not pretend to arrange them in any particular order, or that any particular significance should be placed on the order which I have mentioned them.

My usual course when sentencing and where a plea of guilty has been entered and particularly where an early plea has been entered is to recognise the early plea by a discount, if that is the right expression, because I think there are strong reasons why such pleas should be encouraged by our community.

The benefits of the saving to the community of the cost and time that trials involve is obvious. The more significant benefit, so far as I am concerned, and it is particularly pertinent in situations like these is that when an early intimation is given that a plea of guilty will be entered, the victims can then get on with their lives knowing that they will not have to relive their experiences by relating them to a group of strangers, and I think that is very important aspect.

As I say, usually it is my practice to reflect an early plea by reducing the head sentence and I then go on to consider other factors which may be pertinent to the question of what factors should be taken into account by way of mitigation. In this case, as I have already indicated, I intend to make a recommendation. It seems to me that one of the safeguards that society will have if that recommendation is acted upon will be that you will be subject to the supervision of the parole authorities. It seems to me to be desirable that that should be for as long a period as may lawfully be permitted. That is the reason why I do not propose to reflect your plea of guilty by a reduction in the head sentence. It should be given significant effect so far as the recommendation that I intend to make is concerned.

Your counsel has eloquently stated on your behalf, I think, all that can possibly be said by way of mitigation, and indeed there is much force in most of the submissions he has made to me.

I have already touched on the one factor which I regard as being very significant. That is your early plea. I have touched upon the benefits to society and, more importantly, the benefits to the victims which flow from that. It is true to observe you have been cooperative with the authorities from very shortly after these matters came to light.

An early plea is not always indicative of remorse. Often it simply reflects the strength of the Crown case. In your case, however, I am entirely satisfied that you have demonstrated remorse in a very significant way. I am satisfied that you have genuine remorse for what you have done.

It is not unusual for those who are before this Court to feel remorseful, but often one thinks that is more related to remorse about their own position rather than in respect of the position of their victims. Whilst no doubt you do feel considerable anguish about your own position, I am entirely satisfied that you have demonstrated genuine remorse so far as your victims are concerned. You appear to me to have compassion for and an understanding of their position.

You have taken steps by way of monetary compensation and by your apologies to in some way demonstrate that remorse and in some way address the harm you have done to your victims.

It seems to me you also have demonstrated some remorse for the damage which your actions must inevitably occasion to the schools at which you worked for many years.

I am satisfied that you have demonstrated a determination now to address the serious problems which you have. I am indebted to Dr Lynagh for his helpful and insightful report upon you and upon the problems which you have had and that you will face.

I should say that I take into account but not do not give particularly great weight to the fact that your own childhood experiences were in many ways somewhat frightening. They may well explain how it is you came to commit these offences, but it seems to me that for a man of your age and your obvious intelligence, it cannot be the case that they should be a significant mitigating factor.

I think it is also clear that you have retained the support of many in the community who are known to you and who, it is quite clear, in the past you have helped in significant ways. The references that have been put before me are eloquent about the compassion you have shown in the past and the understanding that you have shown to others in various unhappy circumstances. Those references come from students, from the families of students and from your former colleagues.

It seems to me that a common theme of those references are the writers expressing their dismay at learning of what you have done, to acknowledge what you have done for the evil that it was, but nonetheless to express support for you. It seems to me that it is to your credit that they should be able to feel that way. It is clear, as your counsel has said, that your teaching days are over. It is one of the tragedies of this case that it would seem to me that future students necessarily have to lose the talents of a very gifted teacher.

I take into account you are experiencing some health problems which may perhaps become more significant in the future.

In imposing the sentences I do upon you, as I have said, it seems to me we are dealing with essentially two courses of conduct separated by a number of years.

It is important to bear in mind, I think, that the public, the community has become increasingly aware of the types of problems caused by child abuse, child sexual abuse, and that concern in the community has been reflected over the years by Parliament as it has increased the penalties that apply.

Of course I am constrained by those penalties which existed at the time the offences were committed. It is for that reason it seems to me that the most appropriate course is to do as I indicated at the outset of these observations. That is, to impose a sentence of three years in respect of the earlier offences, five years in respect to the later offences.

Because it seems to me one can fairly look at the situation and see two separate courses of conduct, as I say, separated by some years, it seems to me appropriate, and indeed it seems to me that the enormity of your conduct calls for those sentences to be cumulative, whilst, as I have said, being concurrent within the temporal areas in which they were committed.

The orders I make therefore are these: on counts 1 to 19 I order that you be sentenced to three years’ imprisonment. Those sentences to be concurrent one with the other. On count 20 and the following counts, I order that you be imprisoned for five years, those sentences to be concurrent one with the other, but cumulative upon the earlier sentences.

I recommend that you be considered for post-prison community based release orders after 24 months from today. It will, of course, be a matter for the authorities at that time to consider whether it is safe for the community for you to re-enter it as a citizen.

The Crown have asked that I give consideration to the provisions of section 19 of the 1945 Act. That Act requires that I must be satisfied, if I am to make such an order, that there is a substantial risk that you will, upon your release, commit further offences of a sexual nature upon or in relation to a child under the age of 16.

I take into account the history that has been given to me of your offending in the past. I take into account the various steps you have taken, and which I have touched upon briefly since those matters were discovered to address your problems.

I place particular significance upon Dr Lynagh’s report. In saying that, of course, it is by no means clear that he guarantees success. He clearly does not. He acknowledges the difficulties that are faced by him and others of his profession who seek to help people such as yourself.

It seems to me that an order must be made upon a finding based that there is the substantial risk that is referred to. That finding, it seems to me, should be one made on the balance of probabilities.

Bearing in mind the consequences of making such an order it seems to me that whilst the balance of probabilities standard applies, I would nonetheless require proof of a fairly substantial nature to satisfy me to the requisite standard.

I find I am not satisfied that the risk referred to in the section exists in this case and I do not propose to make the order. In taking that course I am somewhat reassured by my understanding that it would be most unlikely you would regain teacher registration in this State and, secondly, by the fact that I understand that there are provisions now of a general application which would minimise the opportunities that would be open to you in the future to offend in a like manner.

Having imposed a sentence of five years’ imprisonment in respect of the later offences, I am also called upon to consider whether I should exercise my discretion and declare that you are a serious violent offender.

It is perhaps apparent from the orders that I have made that I do not regard that as being an appropriate order to make in this case and I will not make such an order.

RETRIEVED: https://www.sentencing.sclqld.org.au/php/hiliter.php?run=1&url=/sentencing_remarks/2002/SR_BRIS_BuchananAK_26042002.html

Redress Scheme

Enter your eMail details ASAP, subscribing for Updates to the National Redress Scheme – expected July 2018:

https://www.dss.gov.au/families-and-children/programs-services/children/redress-scheme-for-people-who-have-experienced-institutional-child-sexual-abuse/subscribe-for-updates

Link

The Royal Commission wants documents or information that you have – what do you do? – Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration – Australia

144 - clayton utz

Government agencies, organisations and individuals who may have information or documents relevant to the work of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse can all be required to produce them.

What is an institution?

What powers does the Commission have to require production of documents or summon witnesses?

What is a reasonable excuse for not complying with a summons to give evidence or produce documents to the Commission? (cont…)