The third in our blog series considering redress schemes for victims of abuse considers the Australian National Redress Scheme (the NRS). It was established in 2018 on foot of a recommendation by the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, which estimated that some 60,000 survivors might be eligible to apply.

The NRS aimed to offer:

  • 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 NRS has been beset with difficulties and criticism, it has been the subject of a number of reviews and is currently the subject of an inquiry by the Joint Standing Committee on Implementation of the National Redress Scheme, which is referred to in more detail below.

In its most recent update the NRS has confirmed that the Redress Assessment Framework (Redress Tariff) has changed. In response to a recommendation of the Second Anniversary Review of the National Redress Scheme, the Australian Government agreed to change the National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Assessment Framework 2018 (Assessment Framework).The Assessment Framework has been changed to combine the payments relating to the recognition of sexual abuse and the impact of sexual abuse into one combined amount, which is now titled recognition and impact of abuse. There is no change to the amount of redress payment amount. The change is that the new Assessment will recognise the sexual abuse experienced and its impact, even if an individual chose not to tell the NRS about the impact in their application.

The NRS also referenced the publication of the June 2024 Strategic Success Measures report, which reflects on how the NRS is performing across three priority areas being:

  • survivor experience
  • health of the National Redress Scheme
  • equity of access

As at 30 June 2024, the average processing time for applications was 12.7 months. The average processing time is calculated from when the NRS first receives an application until the day that an applicant is notified of their outcome. While this is most likely shorter than a litigated claim it is someway off the 7.5 weeks in Northern Ireland.

12,000 (74%) of people who accepted an offer of redress, had also accepted the offer for Counselling and Psychological Care (CPC) services  Of these 8,338 (69%) were for referral services and 3,662 (31%) were for a lump sum payment.

9,524 (representing 59% of applicants who responded to their offer of redress) indicated that they may like to participate in a Direct Personal Response.

Only 1% of all initial determinations were changed at the review/appeal stage, which indicates that despite criticism of how long it takes to process an application, the level of redress being awarded appears to be fair and reasonable.

In keeping with most modern national redress scheme 59% of applicants are male and 41% are female. 

As we move towards an ever increasing digital way of working, its important to remember the digital poverty of many people who would be applying to such schemes, 55% of applications are online but 45% of applications are still made on paper.

As at 27 September 2024, there have been 48,953 applications to the NRS.

Of these:

  • 19,680 applicants have had their outcomes advised. 
  • Of these 16,665 payments have been made totalling approximately AUS$1.49 billion. This indicates that the average award of redress being made by the NRS is AUS$89,408, which is equivalent to £45,991.
  • Of these 27,209 applications are yet to receive an outcome. This means that 55% of the total applications received by the NRS to date are still on hand and are yet to be finalised. 

With backlogs like this, it is no surprise that the NRS is the subject of an inquiry by the Joint Standing Committee on Implementation of the National Redress Scheme which is expected to report on the NRS this month.

Over the course of this inquiry, the Committee has received over 50 submissions and held 11 public hearings, all of which have highlighted a number of areas that the Committee will need to review, in the course of its inquiry, which are as follows:

  • The experience of First Nations applicants and applicants with disability in their dealings with the NRS.
  • Accessibility, performance and effectiveness of support services and legal advice for survivors and their advocates.
  • Barriers and complications experienced when accessing the NRS, such as with language, communication and cultural safety.
  • The need for increased resources for redress legal services and counselling support services to better meet demand and reduce long waiting periods.
  • Concerns regarding delays processing applications, the consistency of redress outcomes and the transparency of decisions.

Adequate skilled resourcing of the NRS itself and the associated counselling and legal services provided to survivors and their advocates has been at the heart of the criticism of the NRS since it was established in 2018 and this remains the case over six years on.

The mechanism provided for funding redress payments within the NRS has also been a source of concern and criticism. The Royal Commission recommended that governments provide "funder of last resort" funding to meet final redress payments where an institution no longer exists. Originally, the NRS only provided for “funder of last resort” obligations to kick in where an institution is defunct and the participating state/territory governments shares equal responsibility. 

It was always the intention of the NRS that any redress should ideally be paid by the institution or institutions in which the abuse occurred, the principle that the responsible entity pays. However, in practice, this gave rise to many applications being placed on hold because the responsible institution no longer existed, there was no funder of last resort or the responsible institution had declined or was unable to join the NRS. This led to amending legislation in 2021, which provided that where an application for redress names a responsible institution that is not participating in the NRS and a final determination of the application for redress would otherwise be suspended or delayed, governments should prioritise declaring themselves as the funder of last resort for:

  • named institutions that are defunct and where no link to a parent or government institution can be found
  • those named institutions that have been assessed to not possess the financial means to join the NRS but are willing to do so.

It is understood that these new arrangements did improve delays in processing such applications but it has not eradicated them.

The NRS is now in its sixth year of a fixed ten year period for the making of applications and there are still lessons to be learned, changes to be made and processes to be streamlined. However, the opportunity to deliver that change is diminishing.