Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee, , 10:50:22 to 10:53:35
Officials explain the differences between participating and non-participating institutions within the National Redress Scheme for survivors of abuse.
Topics: Human rights, Social services
Speakers: Senator Malcolm Roberts, Ellie Whiteaker, Unknown Speaker, Speaker 68
Thank you. It was remiss of me. I should have mentioned at the beginning of this outcome that in addition to offices relating to outcome one, we also have the director of the Australian Institute of Family Studies, Ms. Liz Neville. And the National Commissioner for Abucl and Torres Strait Islander Young Children and Young People, Ms. Swan Hunter, who is joining us by video conference, just if Senators wish to ask them questions also. I should have mentioned that at the beginning. Senator Roberts.
Thank you, Chair. Could I have the someone for answering questions for national redress, please? Thank you for appearing tonight. Just I'll check the background first to make sure I'm on the right track. The national redress scheme was set up to provide access to compensation for survivors of historic child sexual abuse committed by persons in religious sporting and other social institutions. Is that correct?
Yes. Senator, sorry, Grant Lovelock, acting Deputy Secretary service delivery? That's correct.
Thank you, Mr. Lovelock. Where an institution has been identified by way of a claim, it may choose to be a participating institution or otherwise be disclosed as a non-participating institution under Section 95A of the National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Act 2018. The Australian National, is that correct? What's the difference between a participating institution or non-participating? So a participating institution senator joins the scheme and we work with that institution in relation to the to gather information and to find a redress outcome as a result of that. So the participating institution pays the damages? Correct. Non-participating? So a non-participating institution has chosen not to join the scheme.
We then are not able to pursue a redress outcome for their applicants. As a result of choosing not to participate in the scheme, the institution is also not eligible to receive charitable status and is publicly named.
Okay, I wonder what the what the sting was. Okay. The Australian National Audit Office found that the scheme's administration was only partly effective and reported that it's independent decision-making quality framework had not operated as intended.