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

National Redress Scheme – Update


6 October 2020

This newsletter covers an update on the second anniversary review of the National Redress Scheme (the Scheme).

Should you find any of the content in this newsletter confronting or distressing, remember support is available. To find out more, go to www.nationalredress.gov.au/support.


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 links to the study are as follows:


Find out more

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


Copyright © 2020 Australian Government, All rights reserved.
You are receiving this email because you opted in via our website. 

Our mailing address is:
Australian GovernmentGPO Box 9820CANBERRAACT2601Australia
Add us to your address book

Want to change how you receive these emails?
You can update your preferences or unsubscribe from this list.

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

20 ‘powerful elite’ abused children for decades – whistleblower

8 Jul, 2014 10:52 / Updated 6 years ago

Britain’s Home Secretary Theresa May (Reuters / Phil Noble) © Reuters

At least 20 former MPs, government ministers, judges and other prominent figures abused children for decades, claims a former child protection manager.

At least 20 former MPs, government ministers, judges and other prominent figures abused children for decades, claims a former child protection manager.

Whistleblower Peter McKelvie, whose allegations led initially to a 2012 police inquiry, told BBC Newsnight a “powerful elite” of pedophiles carried out “the worst form” of abuse.

He told the programme there was evidence that victims of abuse were treated like “lumps of meat,” taken from place to place to be molested.

McKelvie, formerly a child protection manager in Hereford and Worcester, took his concerns to Labour MP Tom Watson in 2012, who then raised the matter in parliament, prompting a preliminary police inquiry that became a formal inquiry in 2013.

“For the last 30 years and longer than that, there have been a number of allegations made by survivors that people at the very top of powerful institutions in this country … have been involved in the abuse of children,”McKelvie told Newsnight.

Asked if claims had been made against people still in positions of power today, he said, “Very much so … what are allegations may or may not be true, but the allegations are there and they are against very specific named individuals.”

Announcing two reviews into the claims in the House of Commons on Monday, Home Secretary Theresa May said the first would be led by an independent panel of experts headed by Lady Butler Slosson law and child protection, while the second would cover how police and prosecutors handled information given to them.

She said further inquiries would focus on the Home Office’s alleged failure to act on allegations of child sex abuse contained in a dossier handed to them by Home Secretary Leon Britton in the 1980s by former Tory MP Geoffrey Dickens.

May claimed that files in the missing dossier were not deleted or destroyed intentionally, but pledged the inquiries would determine whether state bodies and “other non-state institutions”fulfilled their“duty of care to protect children from sexual abuse.

“It will, like the inquiries into Hillsborough and the murder of Daniel Morgan, be a non-statutory panel inquiry. This means that it can begin its work sooner,” she told MPs.


RETRIEVED https://www.rt.com/uk/171176-children-abuse-mps-decades/

‘Free-balls’, until 2002?

Until 2001/2 there appears to have been no Government controls over most Private Schools. Known as “Accreditation of Non-State Schools”, until the introduction of the 2006 Act, all that appears to be available was the ‘Education (General Provisions) Act 1989 (Qld)’. Memories of Buchanan and Bradley seemingly rubbing the noses of their victims, in BBC’s non-inclusions of the 1989 Act were experienced by many. Each of these Victims do have NRS Compensation-Support-Apologies available to them (minimum).

Of particular note in Qld Gov’s Objectives of the 2017 version: “to maintain public confidence in the operation of non-State Schools”. How much does this seem defensive, of the decades + decades of abhorrent ‘kiddie-fiddling’ which ran riot in our ‘Elite Schools of Excellence’?


The following processes, must now be provided to all students:

  • a. the reporting, by a student to a stated staff member, of behaviour of another staff member that the student considered inappropriate
  • how the information reported must be dealt with
  • the reporting, by a staff member to the School’s Principal, of harm of which the staff member is aware, or the staff member reasonably suspects to have been caused to a student under 18 years
  • the reporting of harm or suspected harm by the Principal to a relevant State Authority.

Available via LIBRARY (pdf) …

CARC. (2017). Case Study 34: INQUIRY INTO THE EXPERIENCE OF BRISBANE GRAMMAR SCHOOL AND ST PAUL’S SCHOOL IN QUEENSLAND.

Education (General Provisions) Act 1989. Queensland Parliament. The Office of the Queensland Parliamentary Counsel.

Education (General Provisions) Act 2006. Queensland Parliament. The Office of the Queensland Parliamentary Counsel.

Education (General Provisions) Act 2017. Queensland Parliament. The Office of the Queensland Parliamentary Counsel.


Child abuse

3-minute read Listen

Healthdirect Free Australian health advice you can count on.

If you believe a child is in immediate danger or in a life-threatening situation call 000. If you wish to report a child protection matter, contact the department responsible for child protection in your state or territory.

Child abuse is any behaviour that harms or could harm a child or young person, either physically or emotionally. It does not matter whether the behaviour is intentional or unintentional.

There are different types of child abuse, and many children experience more than one type:

  • Physical abuse: using physical force to deliberately hurt a child.
  • Emotional abuse: using inappropriate words or symbolic acts to hurt a child over time. 
  • Neglect: failing to provide the child with conditions needed for their physical and emotional development and wellbeing.
  • Sexual abuse: using a child for sexual gratification.
  • Exposure to family violence: when a child hears or sees a parent or sibling being subjected to any type of abuse, or can see the damage caused to a person or property by a family member’s violent behaviour.

Children are most often abused or neglected by their parents or carers of either sex. Sexual abuse is usually by a man known to the child — a family member, a friend or a member of the school or church community.

Child abuse can affect a child’s physical, psychological, emotional, behavioural and social development through to adulthood.

Recognising the signs of child abuse is important. There may be physical, emotional or behavioural signs such as:

  • broken bones or unexplained bruising, burns or welts
  • not wanting to go home
  • creating stories, poems or artwork about abuse
  • being hungry and begging, stealing or hoarding food

You should report suspected child abuse to the relevant authority in your state or territory, even if you are not certain it’s happening. This is called a notification.

Child protection systems vary depending on which state and territory you live in. This includes definitions of when a child requires protection and when authorities will intervene. 

Some occupations are legally required to report suspected cases of child abuse to government authorities. The laws are different between states and territories but the most common occupations are teachers, doctors, nurses and police.

Getting help

If you have hurt your child, or feel like you might hurt them, call Lifeline on 131 114.

If you are a child, teen or young adult who needs help and support, call the Kids Helpline on 1800 55 1800

If you are an adult who experienced abuse as a child, call Blue Knot Helpline on 1300 657 380 or visit their website at www.blueknot.org.au/Helpline.

For more information on child abuse visit the Australian Institute of Family Studies website. 

Sources:

Australian Institute of Health and Welfare(Child protection), ReachOut.com(What is child abuse?), Kids Helpline(Homepage), Queensland Government(About child abuse), Australian Institute of Families(Reporting child abuse and neglect: Information for service providers), Blue Knot Foundation(For survivors of childhood trauma and abuse), Australian Institute of Families(What is child abuse and neglect?)

Learn more here about the development and quality assurance of healthdirect content.

Last reviewed: November 2018

RETRIEVED https://www.healthdirect.gov.au/child-abuse

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

Australian Government Response

Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse: Final Report

The achievements of the Royal Commission and the commitments in this Australian Government Response are a tribute to the survivors and victims of institutional child sexual abuse, their families and supporters. Their courage has helped to create a culture of accountability and of trust in children’s voices that will help all of us to take responsibility for keeping children safe and well.

The Australian Government has listened to the Royal Commission and to survivors and victims of institutional child sexual abuse. The Australian Government acknowledges that much more needs to be done to prevent and protect children from sexual abuse in institutions.

Cultural change in our institutions and society more broadly, is fundamental to ensuring the safety of our children. Changing our institutional cultures and providing the legal and practical safeguards to support that change will take some time. Many of Australia’s governments and institutions have already acted to start that change, knowing that giving redress and comfort to survivors and protecting children into the future is urgent and cannot wait. In this response, the Australian Government has recognised and acknowledged that there must be change, but has also highlighted where genuine efforts at reform are being made.

On 15 December 2017, the Royal Commission submitted its Final Report to the Governor-General, His Excellency General the Honourable Sir Peter Cosgrove AK MC (Retd). The Final Report was tabled in the Australian Parliament the same day.

The Royal Commission recommended the Australian Government and all state and territory governments should issue a formal response to the Final Report within six months of it being tabled.

Of the 409 recommendations in the Final Report, 84 recommendations deal with redress, which the Australian Government is responding to through the creation of the National Redress Scheme for people who have experienced institutional child sexual abuse. Of the remaining 325 recommendations, 122 have been directed wholly or partially to the Australian Government. The Response accepts, or accepts in principle 104 of these 122 recommendations. The remaining 18 recommendations directed at the Australian Government are listed as being ‘for further consideration’ or are ‘noted’. The Australian Government has not rejected any of the recommendations.

The Australian Government has also ‘noted’ some recommendations that fall within the leadership and responsibility of state and territory governments or that the Royal Commission directed to religious or other non-government institutions. The Australian Government will continue to work closely with all governments and institutions, including religious institutions, to promote children’s safety and wellbeing. Our expectation is that other governments and institutions will respond to each of the Royal Commission’s recommendations, indicating what action they will take in response to them and will report on their implementation of relevant recommendations annually in December, along with the Australian, state and territory governments. Where other governments and institutions decide not to accept the Royal Commission’s recommendations they should state so and why.

The Australian Government thanks the Commissioners, Mr Bob Atkinson AO APM, Justice Jennifer Coate, Mr Robert Fitzgerald AM, Professor Helen Milroy, Mr Andrew Murray and the Chair of the Royal Commission, the Hon Justice Peter McClellan AM, for their leadership and compassion throughout the Royal Commission and for delivering such a significant report for our nation. The Australian Government is grateful to the staff, expert witnesses, researchers, stakeholder groups, and government and non-government representatives who came forward to share their knowledge and experience. The Australian Government also acknowledges the spirit of commitment demonstrated by all state and territory governments during the Royal Commission and in working to address its recommendations. Most importantly, the Australian Government thanks the survivors and victims of institutional child sexual abuse, together with their families and supporters, for their courage and determination in telling their stories and for raising the awareness needed to protect our children.

The Hon Malcolm Turnbull MP The Hon Christian Porter MP

Prime Minister of Australia Attorney-General

(Retrieved from https://www.ag.gov.au/RightsAndProtections/Australian-Government-Response-to-the-Royal-Commission-into-Institutional-Responses-to-Child-Sexual-Abuse/Documents/australian-government-response-introduction.docx)

Australian Government Response to the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse

The Australian Government is committed to ensuring that children in institutional care are safe and protected from abuse.

On 13 June 2018, the Australian Government tabled its response to the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse.

The Australian Government Response acknowledges the courage of the survivors and victims of institutional child sexual abuse, their families and supporters as well as the work of the Royal Commission in helping to create changes to ensure that children are protected from child abuse in all institutions now and in the future.

The full version and individual chapters are available to download below:

Australian Government Response – Introduction [PDF 380KB]

Australian Government Response – Introduction [DOCX 136KB]

Part one: Final Report Response [PDF 852KB]

Part one: Final Report Response [DOCX 205KB]

Part two: Working With Children Checks Report Response [PDF 380KB]

Part two: Working With Children Checks Report Response [DOCX 131KB]

Part three: Criminal Justice Report Response [PDF 565KB]

Part three: Criminal Justice Report Response [DOCX 168KB]

Part four: Redress and Civil Litigation Report Response [PDF 292KB]

Part four: Redress and Civil Litigation Report Response [DOCX 137KB]

Fact sheet [PDF 193KB]

Fact sheet [DOCX 112KB]

In December 2017, the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse Final Report made 409 recommendations. The Australian Government is addressing each of these recommendations in partnership with state and territory governments.

More information about the Australian Government’s response is available on the following pages:

Role of Australian Government agencies

Role of states and territories

Role of institutions

Support services

To obtain a hard-copy of the Australian Government Response, please contact the CARCImplementationTaskforce@ag.gov.au and include your postal address with your message.

(Retrieved from https://www.ag.gov.au/carcresponse)