Queensland Announces It Will Join National Child Sexual Abuse Redress Compensation Scheme
Tuesday 1 May 2018 @ 10.23 a.m. | Crime | Legal Research
Queensland Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk has announced that Queensland will be opting in to the Commonwealth’s National Redress Scheme, which will provide compensation payments to victims of childhood sexual abuse while in the care of institutions. Queensland is the fourth state to announce that it will join the scheme, with Victoria, New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory also having joined the scheme.
In a media release, the Queensland Premier said:
“Although no amount of money can return a lost childhood it is important that we acknowledge what these victims have been through.”
The media release says that 5,000 Queenslanders may be eligible for compensation due to abuse in government institutions. The Premier also called for institutions run by non-government organisations to join the scheme, which could see another 5,000 people eligible for compensation. According to the media release, people compensated by the 1999 Forde inquiry are eligible for further compensation under the new national scheme. Payments under the scheme will be capped at $150,000.
Committee Report on the Bills
The two Bills that form the legislative framework of the national redress scheme (the Commonwealth Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Bill 2017 and the Commonwealth Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2017) are still being considered in the Commonwealth Parliament. The Bills have so far been considered by two scrutiny committees (the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights and the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills) and the Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee, who released their final report on the Bills on 28 March 2018.
The Community Affairs Legislation Committee made a number of recommendations, including that:
- "the Australian Government should consider reducing the two year deadline for institutions to opt in to the Redress Scheme, and should consider options to encourage greater participation in the Redress Scheme"
- "the Department [of Social Services] should ensure that planned consultations on the rules of the Redress Scheme include survivors' representative groups, and ensure information on rules is communicated as it becomes available"
- "the Department should actively engage with survivors' representative groups to provide clear communications for survivors, the community and media on how decisions will be made and matters that will be taken into account in making those decisions. Where necessary communication should reference the average payment amount rather than focussing on the maximum redress payment"
- "in developing the minimum timeframes in the Redress Scheme, for the provision of documents or answers to an offer of redress, the Department should consider the special circumstances of survivors in remote communities, those with functional communication barriers and survivors experiencing trauma or mental health episodes linked to their abuse"
- "the government consider changing the period of acceptance for redress from three months to six months, including provision for survivors to request an extension to this acceptance period where circumstances warrant"
- "in finalising the position on the exclusion of serious criminal offenders from the Redress Scheme, the Australian, state and territory governments should consider the value of the Redress Scheme as a tool for the rehabilitation of offenders, and that excluding criminal offenders can have the unintended consequence of institutions responsible for child sexual abuse not being held liable."
The Committee recommended that the Bills be passed.
TimeBase is an independent, privately owned Australian legal publisher specialising in the online delivery of accurate, comprehensive and innovative legislation research tools including LawOne and unique Point-in-Time Products. Nothing on this website should be construed as legal advice and does not substitute for the advice of competent legal counsel.
