tag:theconversation.com,2011:/us/topics/redress-scheme-45619/articlesRedress scheme – The Conversation2018-02-15T17:56:27Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/908212018-02-15T17:56:27Z2018-02-15T17:56:27ZAbuse in care versus not in care: we need to tackle potential bias in a national redress scheme<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/205864/original/file-20180211-51706-hvu2kw.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">No other government redress scheme has included children who were abused both in care and not in care.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Mick Tsikas</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r6006">proposed Commonwealth redress scheme</a> for victims of child sexual abuse is a first step toward creating a national redress scheme. Should a national scheme result, it will be unlike any other in the world.</p>
<p>There are (or have been) 36 major government schemes for institutional abuse of children in 13 countries (and one independent polity). But the proposed national scheme in Australia is more complex, bigger, and includes more sites of abuse than any other.</p>
<p>For complexity, it has different claimant groups, diverse offending organisations, federal-state governance, shared costs of government and non-government organisations, and will need to account for previous payments survivors received for abuse.</p>
<p>For size, the expected number of eligible claimants – validated and awarded a monetary payment – is larger than any other scheme using an individualised assessment of abuse and impact. The estimated number is 60,000; the two other largest schemes have involved 31,500 (<a href="http://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1100100015576/1100100015577">Canada</a>) and 15,570 (<a href="http://www.rirb.ie/">Ireland</a>) claimants.</p>
<p>For scope, the royal commission estimates the number of individual Australian institutions where sexual abuse of children occurred is 4,000. The numbers for the Canada and Ireland pale in significance, at about 140 residential schools and 144 industrial schools, reformatories, orphanages, special schools, and hospitals, respectively.</p>
<p>But the elephant in the room – a profound problem few have recognised – is that Australia’s proposed scheme has two different claimant groups: those who were abused in care, and those who were abused in non-care settings.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/listen-to-abuse-survivors-and-advocates-to-clear-the-way-to-a-national-redress-scheme-90925">Listen to abuse survivors and advocates to clear the way to a national redress scheme</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Care versus not in care</h2>
<p>No other government scheme has included children who were abused both in care and not in care.</p>
<p>Virtually all government schemes have focused only on children who were placed in institutional or out-of-home care, including foster care. They lived in “closed” settings – such as residential facilities, homes, training schools, or detention centres – on a long-term basis, without a parent to care for them. This group is called “care-leavers”.</p>
<p>A second group – “non-care-leavers” – were abused in “open” settings such as schools, church parishes, clubs, and sports associations, often by clergy and members of religious orders, or lay staff in religious organisations.</p>
<p>Compared to care-leavers, non-care-leavers had one or more parents caring for them. Fewer schemes globally include non-care-leavers; almost all that do are faith-based.</p>
<p>Adjusting for multiple contexts of victimisation, those abused in out-of-home care or detention <a href="https://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/final-report">made up 44%</a> of the 6,875 survivors who attended the royal commission’s private sessions to May 2017.</p>
<p>Australia’s proposed redress scheme is also unusual in focusing on sexual abuse alone: just 18% of government schemes for care-leavers do. </p>
<p>Care-leaver advocacy groups <a href="https://www2.griffith.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0021/223329/2018-Inequalities-of-redress-14-Feb.pdf">have long criticised</a> the sole focus on sexual abuse. They argue children:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>… were violated in every sense in an institution and being sexually used was just one of those violations. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>What’s remembered is living in “constant fear of sexual abuse, [suffering] deprivation of food and schooling, forced labour, and medical neglect”, in addition to physical and sexual abuse. </p>
<p>Australian care-leavers are seeking redress for the state’s failure to carry out its duty of care, as survivors have done in other government redress schemes. But redress for institutional abuse is restricted in the Australian scheme. This was set in motion by the federal government’s <a href="https://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/terms-reference">terms of reference</a> for the royal commission to focus on sexual abuse. </p>
<p>There is little doubt that what motivated Julia Gillard to establish the commission was clergy sexual abuse of children and cover-ups by the police and church authorities. Media attention then and now is fixed on this phenomenon, and often overlooks other victims and contexts of institutional child abuse.</p>
<p>Calling attention to group differences between care leavers and non-care-leavers does not suggest one group suffered more than the other. That is, and would be, wrong. </p>
<p>Rather, we should pay attention to group differences that matter for justice, with reference to the monetary payment. These are experiences of abuse and the social status of child victims.</p>
<p>Care-leavers lived in settings in which sexual abuse was both public and private, both direct and more diffuse in a sexualised and violent environment – one in which sexual abuse occurred in all spheres of living, working and sleeping. As children, care-leavers were considered and treated as low-status, as morally and socially inferior to other children.</p>
<p>Unless corrective action is taken, these differences may disadvantage care-leavers in assessing the monetary payment compared to non-care-leavers.</p>
<h2>How will the monetary payment be decided?</h2>
<p>The royal commission’s proposed matrix for deciding monetary payments recognises group differences (in the experiences of abuse, but not social status of child victims) by including a 20% factor for “additional elements” if a child was in care or a closed institution. </p>
<p>However, it can go further by giving explicit recognition to group differences in the context-dependent nature of sexual abuse, and in children’s social status. Otherwise, care-leavers will appear not to “measure up” to the presumed standard of non care leavers. This will occur in two ways. </p>
<ul>
<li><p>First, the framing of sexual abuse will draw on personal injuries law, which considers the types and frequencies of specific acts of abuse, for which claimants are able to recall names of perpetrators and a timeframe or dates. This legal framing is not well suited for care-leavers, for whom sexual abuse was more often diffuse and interwoven in daily life.</p></li>
<li><p>Second, care-leavers’ lower social status as children is likely to affect decision-makers’ assessments of the perceived severity and impact of abuse. Specifically, it may devalue care-leavers’ experiences compared to those of non-care-leavers. </p></li>
</ul>
<p>This second claim is contentious. However, it comes from research on the impact of a <a href="https://books.google.com.au/books?id=yL4EiAKsdg4C&printsec=frontcover">“hierarchy of victimisation”</a>, in which those of higher social status are treated as more deserving and credible victims.</p>
<p>Evidence also comes from <a href="https://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/sites/default/files/file-list/national_redress_scheme_participant_and_cost_estimates_report.pdf">a report</a> prepared for the royal commission in which average payments in the Catholic Church’s <a href="https://www.catholic.org.au/professional-standards/towards-healing">Towards Healing</a> protocol for sexual and physical abuse were compared. They were A$30,000 for abuse in residential care, but $50,000 to $55,000 for abuse in education and religious settings.</p>
<p>These averages, the report says, were “inconsistent with private session information”, which suggested “a higher severity of abuse in residential settings” compared to others.</p>
<h2>What, then, is the way forward?</h2>
<p>Those in charge of the redress scheme’s implementation must consider:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>whether the assessment matrix takes into account group similarities and differences in the experiences of abuse</p></li>
<li><p>if “sexual abuse” is inclusive of the experiences of children in care and in closed settings</p></li>
<li><p>how the social status of child victims is affecting decisions</p></li>
<li><p>in what ways a care-leaver case seems not to measure up to a non-care-leaver case.</p></li>
</ul>
<p>There must be continual review and reflection on the influences and biases that a child victim’s social status has in determining abuse severity and impact.</p>
<p>Unless this occurs, the bodies and lives of higher-status children will matter more to redress scheme decision-makers. Their abuse will be seen as more serious, and the impact of abuse will be seen as more dramatic. </p>
<p>This will not result from intentional bias, but will take a more subtle – perhaps subconscious – form. It stems from two disparate survivor groups seeking justice in one redress scheme.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/90821/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Kathleen Daly receives an Australian Research Council grant on redress for institutional abuse of children (2017-2020), and has received a previous ARC grant (2013-15) in support of this area of research. She is a member of the Commonwealth Independent Advisory Council on Redress (2017-present).</span></em></p>Australia’s proposed redress scheme for victims of child sexual abuse is more complex, bigger, and includes more sites than any other.Kathleen Daly, Professor of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Griffith UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/909252018-02-07T19:09:27Z2018-02-07T19:09:27ZListen to abuse survivors and advocates to clear the way to a national redress scheme<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/203939/original/file-20180130-170426-b6auje.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Practices for a redress scheme should follow what the royal commission did when working with survivors.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Jeremy Piper</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The recently completed <a href="https://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/">Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse</a> is recognised as a world exemplar in its mode and scope.</p>
<p>However, there are considerable political and policy hurdles facing the federal government if it is to lead the states and territories and move Australia toward a national redress scheme for victims of child sexual abuse, as recommended by the royal commission.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/the-royal-commissions-final-report-has-landed-now-to-make-sure-there-is-an-adequate-redress-scheme-89158">The royal commission's final report has landed – now to make sure there is an adequate redress scheme</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Current hurdles</h2>
<p>Establishing a national scheme is difficult because the Commonwealth alone cannot legislate it. Rather, states must refer powers to the Commonwealth, which then permits their non-government institutions (like churches, charities and secular organisations) to opt in. </p>
<p><a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r6006">A bill</a> currently before parliament is a first step. Passage will affect Commonwealth survivors and permit the territories and associated non-government institutions to opt in. The Commonwealth has 1,000 of a national total of 60,000 eligible survivors.</p>
<p>Despite many meetings over the past two years, the federal government has not been able to persuade the states to refer powers and opt in. This significant hurdle can be traced to who will pay and how much, scheme details, and state-federal politics.</p>
<p>One <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/%7E/media/Committees/Senate/committee/scrutiny/scrutiny_digest/PDF/d13.pdf?la=en">major concern</a> with the current bill is that core elements of the redress scheme – among them who will be eligible and how the monetary payment will be determined – are not in the legislation. Rather, they are in delegated legislation (the rules, not regulations), which gives the scheme operator (the social service minister) considerable discretion in implementing the legislation.</p>
<p>The effect of using the rules is to bypass detailed parliamentary debate on the bill’s provisions. The then social services minister, Christian Porter, <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/%7E/media/Committees/Senate/committee/scrutiny/scrutiny_digest/PDF/min_responses%2015.pdf?la=en">explained that</a> using rules rather than regulations or legislation provides “flexibility” in implementing the scheme, “prompt responses … to unforeseen issues”, and an ability to adapt and modify the scheme in a timely manner.</p>
<p>This position is understandable in light of many questions that will arise during the scheme’s implementation. But a balance will need to be struck between parliamentary oversight and operator flexibility.</p>
<p>The minister has broad powers in the rules to decide who is eligible. Porter <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-10-26/sex-offenders-to-be-excluded-from-child-abuse-redress-scheme/9087256">has said</a> those convicted of a sexual offence or sentenced to imprisonment for five years or more would be ineligible. The reason given was to ensure integrity and public confidence in the scheme. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/when-it-comes-to-redress-for-child-sexual-abuse-all-victims-should-be-equal-86456">When it comes to redress for child sexual abuse, all victims should be equal</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Another area of contention, and in the rules, is the minister’s power to “declare a method” for deciding the monetary payment, known as the assessment matrix. </p>
<p>Porter’s rationale for not having the matrix in legislation is “to prevent fraudulent claims”, which might result if the method or guidelines were published. However, what’s in the rules will be publicly accessible.</p>
<p>Sufficiently robust information, but of a general nature, on what is to be assessed and how it will be assessed must be publicly available so that claimants, legal advisors and support staff, and members of the public are informed. More precise guidance and detail for decision-makers to calculate a monetary payment can be in administrative guidelines.</p>
<h2>What do survivors and advocates want?</h2>
<p>I carried out 16 interviews with well-known public survivors and advocates to get their views on a national redress scheme. Most were interviewed in the months before the bill was tabled. Several major themes emerged.</p>
<p>First, there is strong endorsement for a national redress scheme, with all government and non-government institutions “coming to the table”. It should be “embraced by states and territories, supported by the institutions” to provide “uniformity and equity”. It “shouldn’t be a question of where you live”.</p>
<p>Despite this, concern was expressed that it may not be national. One interviewee said:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>In the current political climate, there’s absolutely no way the Labor states are going to refer powers. [They] can now sniff the breeze and realise that nationally [the Coalition] is in trouble … The state premiers are coming up for re-election. There’s no way they’re going to surrender powers. They’re going to sit this out.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Another said:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The most we can hope for is some sort of flawed partial national scheme.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The political questions are: who is going to pay, is there support, and where is the momentum and media attention? Two interviewees said:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>It’s coming down to the money and who will budge first: how much money the federal government needs to put in and how much the state governments need to put in.</p>
<p>There are no votes in this scheme. There are just no votes … There are no champions beyond those intimately involved. It’s been very difficult for these past five years to keep momentum.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Some states may opt-in to the Commonwealth scheme, but others may decide to legislate their own. Other states may not opt-in or delay a decision. Some non-government organisations may continue to run their own schemes. This fragmentation will create further uncertainty – and one result is increasing civil litigation.</p>
<p>All care-leavers and their advocates underscored their concern with the scheme’s sole focus on sexual abuse, but so too did several advocating for clergy abuse survivors or service groups with a mixed clientele. There is more general interest, then, to include physical and emotional abuse in the redress scheme.</p>
<p>Those interviewed after the minister’s announcement of exclusions based on survivors’ criminal history were against the idea.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/report-makes-the-case-for-a-national-redress-scheme-for-sex-abuse-survivors-47625">Report makes the case for a national redress scheme for sex abuse survivors</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Another theme to emerge was the human costs of not meeting or poorly managing survivors’ expectations. For example: </p>
<ul>
<li><p>Divisions have emerged of “in” and “out” groups of care leavers with the focus on sexual abuse.</p></li>
<li><p>Survivors have unrealistic expectations they will receive the maximum payment of A$150,000. This must be managed carefully.</p></li>
<li><p>The scheme is taking too long to establish, and survivors are dying.</p></li>
</ul>
<p>Many said redress is more than a monetary payment: a payment can “help people get back on their feet”, but it also means acknowledgement, recognition and validation of survivors. </p>
<p>Redress requires attention to how a scheme is implemented. Practices should follow what the commission did when working with survivors, which means sufficient funding for legal and support services. Financial advice, if it is sought by survivors, can ensure that payments are used wisely. </p>
<p>Other redress elements should be considered, such as educational scholarships, access to medical and dental benefits, housing in lieu of a monetary payment, and collective modes of redress like a national memorial and a permanent museum collection on orphanages.</p>
<p>Interviewees argued that government and non-government institutions must be held accountable. They spoke about accountability in two ways:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>For past abuse, institutions must “pull their weight”, and must not “minimise what happened to us” nor engage in “legal tricks, manoeuvres, and various games” to avoid responsibility. There must be a “general humbling of their position to accept that they were wrong”.</p></li>
<li><p>For future change, institutions must “make requisite changes” and commit strongly to ensuring “it doesn’t happen again”.</p></li>
</ul>
<p>Interviewees also wanted to know more about scheme elements and stressed the need for a public education campaign. One said:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Any scheme has got to be sold not only to survivors, but also the Australian public. Public support is very important … I would like to see a lot more public awareness … The taxpayer will be contributing, and if you [want] them supporting it and behind it, they’ve got to understand how it’s operating and be on board.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Another believed there should:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>… have been some public process of informing people about the principles. But [there’s been] nothing, just nothing for the public.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Participants raised many questions about the redress scheme’s elements, how it would operate, and its relationship to civil litigation. An identified problem is that too little detail about the scheme and its principles has been readily available to survivors, advocacy groups, and the public. The federal government needs to be more proactive in this respect.</p>
<p>Many were optimistic when the royal commission released the proposed redress scheme in September 2015. The mood today is more one of pessimism and uncertainty because it has taken a long time to see progress.</p>
<p>Despite this, the message that survivors and advocates want to send to parliament, the minister, all the states and territories and non-government institutions is to establish a truly national scheme:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>… as soon as possible … there are plenty of people who are suffering, and the longer we wait, the less support there will be. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>The nation has been patient. It’s time to end the political games and fulfil the mandate of the royal commission.</p>
<hr>
<p><em>My thanks and appreciation to these people for their time and thoughts in the interviews: Wayne Chamley, John Dommett, Nicola and John Ellis, Chrissie Foster, Peter Fox, Frank Golding, Craig Hughes-Cashmore, Mervyn Humphreys, Rob Llewellyn-Jones, Dee Michell, Joanna Penglase, Francis Sullivan, Leonie Sheedy, Manny Waks, Karyn Walsh and Jacqueline Wilson.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/90925/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Kathleen Daly receives an Australian Research Council grant on redress for institutional abuse of children (2017-2020), and has received a previous ARC grant (2013-15) in support of this area of research. She is a member of the Commonwealth Independent Advisory Council on Redress (2017-present).</span></em></p>There are considerable political and policy hurdles ahead if Australia is to move toward a national redress scheme for victims of child sexual abuse.Kathleen Daly, Professor of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Griffith UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/891582017-12-17T19:22:37Z2017-12-17T19:22:37ZThe royal commission’s final report has landed – now to make sure there is an adequate redress scheme<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/199543/original/file-20171217-17878-1ykrkkb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The royal commission has handed down its final report – now the real work begins.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse has <a href="https://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/final-report">performed its task magnificently</a>. Its scale, complexity and quality is unprecedented. Its work is already being acknowledged internationally as a model of best practice.</p>
<p>As a nation, we can be proud of the commissioners and their staff. We should acclaim the courage of all survivors, including those who informed the commissioners about their experiences, and we should honour those who have not lived to see this day. </p>
<p>We must recognise the integrity and strength of those who advocated for the inquiry, including survivors, their families, journalists and police. We should applaud former prime minister Julia Gillard for initiating the commission, and the current federal government for ensuring it was adequately resourced.</p>
<p>But this is not the end. The real work begins now. Australian governments and major social institutions now have not only the opportunity, but the responsibility, to create lasting social change. Their responses will be monitored here, including through requirements to report on their actions, and around the world.</p>
<h2>The royal commission’s impact</h2>
<p>This watershed inquiry has created the conditions for a seachange in how society deals with child sexual abuse in institutions, which can flow to our treatment of sexual abuse in other settings. </p>
<p>Our society’s leaders can build progress from the pain of former failings. Not meeting this responsibility would surely stick as a lifelong regret for those in positions to cement change. Fulfilling this imperative can leave a legacy of which these government and institutional leaders can be proud.</p>
<p>Substantial progress has already been made. The commission’s <a href="https://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/other-reports">earlier reports</a> have influenced important changes to civil justice systems, criminal justice systems, organisational governance, and prevention, including situational prevention in child and youth-serving organisations. </p>
<p>The <a href="https://www.childsafestandards.org.au/">Child Safe Standards</a> now promoted by the commission are substantially embedded in legislation in several states, requiring organisations to adopt comprehensive measures to prevent, identify and respond appropriately to child sexual abuse.</p>
<p>Civil laws have been amended in most jurisdictions to allow claims for compensation, holding individuals and organisations accountable. </p>
<p>In some states, new requirements to report known and suspected cases apply through special “failure to report” and “failure to protect” offences in criminal laws. They also apply through separate reportable conduct schemes that add essential <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0145213417302624">independent external oversight</a>.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/royal-commission-recommends-sweeping-reforms-for-catholic-church-to-end-child-abuse-89141">Royal commission recommends sweeping reforms for Catholic Church to end child abuse</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Yet much remains to be done. The reforms already made in some states must be adopted elsewhere to create national consistency. </p>
<p>Accountability of individuals and organisations is essential to create cultural change, and needs to be achieved through both civil systems (such as following Western Australia’s recent bill enabling lawsuits against organisations that previously could not be sued, such as the Catholic Church), and criminal systems (for example, prosecuting those who harbour offenders, and removing criminal law principles that compromise criminal prosecutions).</p>
<p>Other state and territory mandatory reporting laws need to be harmonised, as recommended by the commission. Many of the commission’s new 189 recommendations are rightly directed towards prevention, especially through the Child Safe Standards, including their requirements for education, codes of conduct, situational prevention, and the commitment required of organisations’ leadership.</p>
<p>We must focus our efforts on the future, but we must also ensure we properly deal with the past. Perhaps the single most important aspect of this is the redress scheme.</p>
<h2>What happens now with redress?</h2>
<p>The <a href="https://www.dss.gov.au/families-and-children/programs-services/children/commonwealth-redress-scheme-for-survivors-of-institutional-child-sexual-abuse">national redress scheme</a> is behind schedule and must be finalised with sufficient funding, and government and institutional commitment.</p>
<p>The <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r6006">bill for the scheme</a> remains before parliament, awaiting a committee report due in March 2018. It is yet to receive the commitment of all states, territories, and relevant organisations.</p>
<p>The commission recommended the scheme be operational by July 1, 2017, with an upper cap of A$200,000 and an average redress payment of $65,000. Under the bill, the scheme’s cap is $150,000, substantially below the recommendation, and even further below the average payment <a href="http://www.rirb.ie/">awarded in Ireland</a> of more than €60,000 (about A$92,200). In Ireland, the highest payment was more than €300,000 (about A$461,000).</p>
<p>The Australian scheme contains three elements. First, a monetary payment as tangible recognition of the wrong suffered by a survivor. Second, access to counselling and psychological services (estimated at an average of $5,500 per person). Third, if requested, a direct personal response from the responsible institution(s), such as an apology.</p>
<p>Not all survivors will apply to the scheme, as many are not financially motivated. However, it is an essential part of a healing response. This has been shown internationally in Canada, Ireland and elsewhere.</p>
<p>Redress schemes are more flexible and speedy, with less formality and cost, and less trauma and confrontation, than conventional legal proceedings. Payments are not intended to replicate the amount that would be payable under a formal civil compensation claim, and instead are far lower. </p>
<p>Accordingly, institutions should recognise the lower financial commitment required to discharge their ethical obligation to participate compared with their liability in formal civil compensation amounts, especially since recent reforms to civil statutes of limitation have removed time limits and allow a claim to be commenced at any time.</p>
<p>Ten key aspects of the proposed Australian scheme are:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>People are eligible to apply to the scheme if they experienced sexual abuse in an institution while they were a child, before July 1, 2018.</p></li>
<li><p>A lower evidentiary threshold applies, meaning that eligibility for a redress payment is assessed on whether there was “a reasonable likelihood” the person suffered institutional sexual abuse as a child.</p></li>
<li><p>Applicants who have received redress under another scheme or compensation through a settlement or court judgment are still eligible, but prior payments by the institution will be deducted from the amount of redress.</p></li>
<li><p>Only one application per person can be made; where a person was abused in more than one institution, provisions enable the decision-maker to determine the appropriate share of each institution.</p></li>
<li><p>Applicants can access legal assistance to help determine whether to accept the offer of redress.</p></li>
<li><p>A person who accepts an offer of redress must sign a deed of release, meaning the institution(s) responsible for the abuse will not be subject to other civil liability.</p></li>
<li><p>Payments are not subject to income tax.</p></li>
<li><p>Reviews of decisions are limited to internal review, and not to merits review or judicial review.</p></li>
<li><p>Criminal liability of offenders is not affected.</p></li>
<li><p>The scheme is intended to open on July 1, 2018, and operate for ten years; applications need to be made at least 12 months before the closing date of June 30, 2028.</p></li>
</ol>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/when-it-comes-to-redress-for-child-sexual-abuse-all-victims-should-be-equal-86456">When it comes to redress for child sexual abuse, all victims should be equal</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Five further factors need to be accommodated by the scheme to ensure it functions properly and complies with the clear recommendations of the royal commission.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>The upper cap should be $200,000 to ensure sufficient recognition of severe cases.</p></li>
<li><p>To ensure equal access to the scheme, legal assistance must be made available to assist people in making applications.</p></li>
<li><p>Governments and institutions should opt in as soon as possible and commit resources to discharge their duty to participate in the scheme.</p></li>
<li><p>Governments – federal or state – should be the funder of last resort in all cases where the institution is unable to reimburse the Commonwealth (for example, where the institution no longer exists, or lacks resources to participate).</p></li>
<li><p>The method of determining the amount of the payment, based on the severity of the abuse, its impact, and other relevant factors, must be made available as soon as possible so it can be adequately debated.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>The commission’s work contributes a historic, international <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0145213417303678">legacy</a>. The sexual abuse of children in institutions will be revealed in more nations in coming years. This will involve some of the same religious institutions in which it has been found here to be so prevalent, and so heinously concealed and facilitated. Simply due to population, countless children will be shown to be affected.</p>
<p>For this reason, our governments and institutions must now ensure their actions add to the royal commission’s example, and demonstrate to other countries how civilised societies should respond.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/89158/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ben Mathews received funding from the Royal Commission to complete three research projects, which it commissioned. The views expressed here are his own and should not be assumed to reflect those of any other person or organisation. </span></em></p>The royal commission has performed its task with distinction – now it is up to governments and institutions to ensure those efforts are matched with a redress scheme.Ben Mathews, Professor, School of Law, Queensland University of TechnologyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/891412017-12-15T04:42:06Z2017-12-15T04:42:06ZRoyal commission recommends sweeping reforms for Catholic Church to end child abuse<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/199365/original/file-20171215-26031-3wp20s.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">In light of the church's catastrophic failures of care, documented in this report, its survival as a public institution is dependent on responding adequately to this historic commission.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse has been dominated by abuses perpetrated in the Roman Catholic Church. Its <a href="https://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/final-report">final report</a> bears enduring witness to abuse on a horrific scale. </p>
<p>The commission constitutes the most sophisticated and thorough investigation yet into abuse within the Catholic Church globally. Its recommendations are breathtakingly bold. They provide the most comprehensive pathway so far, to redress and prevent abuse in an institution that has had endemic and catastrophic failures in this area.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/royal-commission-report-makes-preventing-institutional-sexual-abuse-a-national-responsibility-88564">Royal commission report makes preventing institutional sexual abuse a national responsibility</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>As journalist David Marr astutely <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/dec/13/grappling-with-rome-david-marrs-lessons-from-the-royal-commission">commented</a>, the Royal Commission has been an exercise in “having an inquiry into the Catholic Church without having an inquiry into the Catholic Church”. Thirty of the 57 case studies were of religious institutions; half of these focused on the Catholic Church. Almost 60% of survivor testimonies in private sessions disclosed abuse in religious institutions. Of these, 61.8% alleged abuse in Catholic institutions. </p>
<p>This equates to more than four times the number of allegations associated with any other religious group. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/when-it-comes-to-redress-for-child-sexual-abuse-all-victims-should-be-equal-86456">When it comes to redress for child sexual abuse, all victims should be equal</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>The scale and nature of abuse uncovered in Catholic institutions is staggering. Between 1980 and 2015, 4,444 people reported allegations of child sexual abuse to Catholic authorities. There were 1,880 Catholic leaders subject to allegations of abuse in over 1,000 separate institutions. In total, 7% of Catholic priests in Australia between 1950 and 2010 were accused of child sexual abuse. In a reversal of the gendered pattern of abuse in the general population, 78% of Catholic abuse claimants were male; 22% were female. </p>
<p>The commission has referred at least 309 matters relating to abuse in the Catholic institutions to the police. Twenty-seven prosecutions have begun, and 75 cases are currently being investigated.</p>
<p>While this picture of abuse in Catholic institutions is horrific, it should not be surprising. The scale and nature of abuse uncovered in Australia corresponds closely to that uncovered in international inquiries in the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Jay_Report">US</a>, <a href="https://books.google.com.au/books/about/Shattering_the_Illusion.html?id=hIbZAgAAQBAJ&redir_esc=y&hl=en">Canada</a>, and <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/may/20/irish-catholic-church-child-abuse">Ireland</a>. We should expect that the <a href="https://www.iicsa.org.uk/">Independent Inquiry</a> into Child Sexual Abuse in England and Wales will uncover a similarly tragic picture there when it reports.</p>
<p>In common with local and international inquiries into abuse in the Catholic Church, the Royal Commission identified:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>failures to report alleged perpetrators to civil authorities; failures to use available canon law measures to discipline perpetrators; the transfer of alleged perpetrators from parish to parish and between dioceses; sending alleged perpetrators for treatment but failing to remove them from ministry; and failures to appreciate the devastating impacts of child sexual abuse on victims and their families.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>From the 1990s, religious organisations began to develop protocols for responding to allegations of abuse, including redress schemes. For some survivors, engaging with these schemes was a positive experience that contributed to their healing. But for many, “their experiences were difficult, frightening or confusing”, and exacerbated their original trauma.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/royal-commission-hearings-show-catholic-church-faces-a-massive-reform-task-72809">Royal commission hearings show Catholic Church faces a massive reform task</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>The recommendations the Royal Commission has made related to the Catholic Church are numerous and far reaching. </p>
<p>The most significant include:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>widespread changes to the laws and culture of governance and leadership in the Catholic Church to combat the secrecy and cover-ups that have characterised the church’s responses to allegations of abuse;</p></li>
<li><p>that the Vatican reform significant areas of canon law to better enable internal discipline of offending clergy;</p></li>
<li><p>that celibacy become a voluntary, rather than compulsory, aspect of ordination or profession to Catholic ministry;</p></li>
<li><p>improvements in the selection and screening of candidates for ministry;</p></li>
<li><p>increased oversight, support, and ongoing training of people in ministry;</p></li>
<li><p>that state and territory governments amend laws concerning mandatory reporting to child protection authorities to include people in religious ministry;</p></li>
<li><p>that laws concerning mandatory reporting to child protection authorities should not exempt people in religious ministry from being required to report on the basis of information disclosed in confession;</p></li>
<li><p>that each jurisdiction in Australia introduce legislation to create a “failure to report” offence targeted at child sexual abuse in institutional contexts, including failure to report on information derived from the confessional;</p></li>
<li><p>the establishment of nationally consistent, reportable conduct schemes that include religious institutions;</p></li>
<li><p>improvements to redress schemes and avenues for civil litigation;</p></li>
<li><p>improvements to information sharing by the church, internally, and with statutory authorities, in relation to offending clergy and religious.</p></li>
</ul>
<p>The Catholic Church is at once a monolithic global institution, and an institution with multiple, relatively independent jurisdictions. This means that while the report’s recommendations for the church are comprehensive, their implementation is by no means simple. </p>
<p>It will take significant courage, effort, and expense on the part of many to effect the recommended reforms. The church’s <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/dec/15/royal-commission-final-report-australia-child-abuse">immediate response did not sound particularly promising</a> on embracing these recommendations.</p>
<p>The Royal Commission has called for five annual reports on the implementation of these recommendations to be publicly tabled following its conclusion this year. Pressure will need to be brought to bear on the church to comply with the commission’s recommendations and reporting schedule.</p>
<p>In light of the church’s catastrophic failures of care, documented in this report, its survival as a public institution is dependent on responding adequately to this historic commission.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/89141/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Timothy W. Jones worked as a consultant for the Australian Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse and the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse in England and Wales. He receives funding from the Australian Research Council and the Australian Research Theology Foundation Incorporated. </span></em></p>The commission’s final report revealed the staggering scale and nature of abuse uncovered in Catholic institutions.Timothy W. Jones, Senior Lecturer in History, La Trobe UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/864562017-10-31T19:06:02Z2017-10-31T19:06:02ZWhen it comes to redress for child sexual abuse, all victims should be equal<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/192556/original/file-20171031-18700-5cd3kz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The redress scheme cannot be a truly 'just response' if it says some kinds of victims simply don’t count.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">AAP/Dave Hunt</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The federal government last week announced details for its long-awaited redress scheme for victims of institutional child sex abuse. The <a href="http://childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/getattachment/f92be4d5-7045-4692-bc5a-d6cb094906ed/Final-report-Redress-and-civil-litigation">proposed scheme</a> is a response to recommendations from the ongoing <a href="http://childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au">Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse</a>. </p>
<p>Controversially, the government <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-10-26/sex-offenders-to-be-excluded-from-child-abuse-redress-scheme/9087256">proposes to exclude</a> from redress anyone convicted of sex offences, and those sentenced to prison terms of five years or more for crimes such as serious drug, homicide or fraud offences.</p>
<p>This proposal is profoundly flawed and a step backward. It is made at a time when institutions should be atoning for past wrongs without arbitrary exceptions.</p>
<h2>Crimes compensation schemes across Australia</h2>
<p>All Australian states and territories have victims of crime compensation schemes. They provide victims of certain crimes with modest compensation to cover their expenses, or payments to recognise wrongs perpetrated against them. </p>
<p>Although state and territory schemes are typically funded by the state, the Commonwealth scheme anticipates that “responsible entities” – such as churches – will pay. </p>
<p>All schemes include criteria detailing who is eligible for support and who is not. People who <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/qld/consol_act/vocaa2009271/s79.html">“collude” with the perpetrator</a>) to rort the scheme are excluded. Victoria’s scheme contains an <a href="http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/vic/consol_act/vocaa1996271/s54.html">additional, broad provision</a> requiring its tribunal to consider whether victims’ “character, behaviour or attitude”, past or present, should exclude them. The idea of excluding certain kinds of victims from support is is thus not unique.</p>
<p>However, all exclusion criteria warrant scrutiny, as they raise questions about victimhood, the selective recognition of harm, and social and community responsibility.</p>
<p>The Commonwealth proposal is especially in need of scrutiny, because of its historic significance and symbolic role, and also because it involves more specific criteria for excluding victims than other schemes. </p>
<h2>The problem with saying only some victims are worthy of sympathy</h2>
<p><a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24703423">We have studied</a> how the Victorian law is interpreted and applied. The Victorian provision differs from the proposed Commonwealth one, but what we found offers clues about the significance of the Commonwealth exclusions. </p>
<p>Victoria’s “character” test allows highly partial moral and political judgements about who may be deemed “worthy” of public sympathy and support. For example, people with a history of illicit drug use or addiction can be excluded on the basis that they have a criminal history.</p>
<p>On occasion, victims with a drug-using history do receive compensation, but this can depend on whether tribunal members interpret the crime they have experienced as an explanation or “excuse” for their drug use or addiction. Here, being a victim of child sexual abuse or family violence is considered relevant. </p>
<p>While an experience of crime might lead to drug use for some, this is not the case for others. The nature of addiction is <a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v507/n7490/full/507040e.html">heavily contested</a>, as is the relationship between drug use and past suffering or trauma. </p>
<p>So, there are practical and ethical problems associated with making decisions in legal contexts about why someone might have begun consuming illicit drugs or developed drug problems, and whether that should exclude them from compensation.</p>
<p>Notably, these evaluations can disproportionately affect women, since women are more often victims of <a href="http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/by%20Subject/4510.0%7E2016%7EMain%20Features%7EVictims%20of%20Family%20and%20Domestic%20Violence%20Related%20Offences%7E6">family violence</a>, <a href="http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/4510.0">sexual assault and sexual abuse</a>. Such scrutiny may also <a href="https://crcvc.ca/docs/victim_blaming.pdf">retraumatise victims</a> and compound, rather than alleviate, their suffering. </p>
<p>As it happens, the Victorian Law Reform Commission is currently undertaking a <a href="http://lawreform.vic.gov.au/projects/victims-crime-assistance-act-1996/victims-crime-assistance-act-supplementary-consultation">review</a> of the Victorian Victims of Crime Assistance Act. We <a href="https://addictionconcepts.com/2017/10/29/ssac-team-presents-research-to-victorian-law-reform-commission/">recently told</a> the commission that the existing approach is flawed.</p>
<p>Although it might be politically popular – and less expensive – to separate applicants into the categories of “deserving” and “undeserving” victims, it is morally wrong to do so. </p>
<p>We acknowledge that some taxpayers may not tolerate money being given to people with criminal records. Why, they might ask, compensate criminals for wrongs done to them, when they themselves don’t respect the law?</p>
<p>At least part of the answer is that as a society we must acknowledge the seriousness of the impact on individuals of the kinds of crimes sometimes before the Victorian tribunal. The same holds for the royal commission.</p>
<p>In introducing the bill to parliament, Social Services Minister Christian Porter <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F6598e913-3fd0-4f8e-ba21-f6772226d702%2F0011%22">described it</a> as a “just response”:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Children placed in the trust of our society’s institutions were some of the most vulnerable members in our community and the fact that must be confronted is that many children were sexually abused by the very people charged with their care and protection. No child should ever experience what we now know occurred. That is why it is time for all institutions and all governments to take responsibility for what has happened.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>This statement acknowledges that children experienced serious harms in contexts facilitated and overseen by the nation. It insists that the community must accept and respond constructively to this knowledge. Taking a careful and informed approach to the meaning of criminal acts such as illicit drug consumption is part of this obligation. </p>
<p>Importantly, those excluded by the Commonwealth scheme will have been convicted and punished in the past. Should someone who suffered harms as a child forfeit the right to have those wrongs acknowledged? Would this amount to punishing them again?</p>
<h2>Justice should apply to everyone</h2>
<p>We would argue that a person’s right to justice, to the extent that this might be available through compensatory schemes, should not be tied to past activities. </p>
<p>As justice theorist Sara Ahmed <a href="https://www.amazon.com/Cultural-Politics-Emotion-Sara-Ahmed/dp/1138805033/ref=pd_lpo_sbs_14_img_0?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=90Z9Q4SPYTC6GWDC0ZAG&dpID=51DOjHTzAKL&preST=_SY291_BO1,204,203,200_QL40_&dpSrc=detail">argues</a> we must: </p>
<blockquote>
<p>… challenge the view that justice is about […] being the right kind of subject. Justice is not about ‘good character’. Not only does this model work to conceal the power relations at stake in defining what is good-in-itself, but it also works to individuate, personalise and privatise the social relation of (in)justice.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>As the royal commission has exposed beyond question, institutional responses to child sexual abuse have often been profoundly irresponsible, and potentially criminal in themselves. </p>
<p>The redress scheme must send the strongest possible message to those responsible. It cannot be a truly “just response” if it says some kinds of victims simply don’t count.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/86456/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Kate Seear is a current recipient of an Australian Research Council DECRA Fellowship (DE160100134). She also receives funding from the Australian Research Council Discovery Scheme and has previously received funding to conduct research on alcohol and other drug issues from the Academy of Social Sciences Australia, the Australian Institute of Criminology and the Queensland Mental Health Commission.
</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Suzanne Fraser currently receives funding from the Australian Research Council through its Discovery scheme, and has also received funding through its Future fellowship scheme. In addition, Suzanne has received funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council's Project Grant scheme, NSW Health and the WA Medical and Health Research Infrastructure Fund.</span></em></p>The government’s proposed redress scheme for victims of institutional child sexual abuse controversially excludes some victims.Kate Seear, Academic Director of Springvale Monash Legal Service & Senior Lecturer in Law, Monash UniversitySuzanne Fraser, Professor, National Drug Research Institute, Curtin UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.