National Redress Scheme

Survivors of child sexual abuse are invited to call NRS to request an application form be mailed to their nominated address or they can create a myGov account to complete the form on-line. The applicant is required to fill-in details of the assault, the assailant(s), and the institution(s).[4] A further one-and-a-half-page space is allotted to “describe the impact of sexual abuse across your life”. [5] The process does not involve face-to-face assessment meetings. Victims of child sexual abuse who are currently in jail are not eligible to apply. [6]

According to the NRS website, payments range between less than $10,000 to $150,000, and earlier payments related to abuse are deducted from that sum.[7] Applicants may be eligible for free counselling [8]

In order for an applicant to receive compensation for abuse that happened while they were at an institution, that institution must have opted to join the NRS. Applicants are able to search for participating institutions on the NRS website. [9]

By late February, 2019, many institutions had still not joined the scheme. In response, the Department of Social Services released a list of 100 institutions that had not signed up. [10] [11]

The National Redress Scheme has attracted criticism from abuse survivors, survivor advocate groups, lawyers, representatives of the Anglican Church, and politicians. [13] Much of this criticism has focused on the ‘matrix’ used by the scheme to calculate compensation. Whereas the Royal Commission's recommended matrix was based on a 100 point system - 40 points for the abuse severity, 40 for impact, and 20 for institutional factors - to determine payments up to a maximum of $200 000, the Guardian reported that:

“The national scheme ...imposes a hierarchy of abuse in which claimants who suffered penetrative abuse (level 1) are the only survivors who can possibly be granted the maximum payment of $150,000. Even in these cases, the amount reduces to $100,000 (or less) unless there were additional “extreme circumstances”, such as institutional vulnerability and related non-sexual abuse." [14]

For those survivors who suffered non-penetrative sexual abuse (which may include oral sex), the maximum payout under the scheme is $50 000, regardless of the number of times they were abused, the number of institutions in which they were abused, or the impact of the abuse. [15] Tasmania's Anglican Bishop, Richard Condie said: "There certainly won't be many people that qualify for the $150,000 because of the way the matrix is constructed.” [13] Lawyer, Dr Judy Courtin described the matrix as “grossly unfair and not based on evidence". In her Guardian article, Courtin gave the example of a child who was sexually exploited by a priest on a more-or-less weekly basis for five to six years:

“This abuse also involved physical and psychological abuse. This man, who has attempted suicide on several occasions, has alcohol abuse problems, cannot study or work and lives alone. Because the priest did not “penetrate” this boy, the maximum amount he can be awarded by the redress scheme is $50,000." [14]

By comparison, Rebel Wilson was awarded $650 000 by the Victorian supreme court for "hurt and distress" [16] after a jury found "Bauer Media had defamed her in a series of magazine articles that said she had lied about her age, real name and childhood". [17]

The ABC reported that details of the NRS matrix were not made public until after the bill had passed both houses of Parliament. West Australian Greens Senator, Rachel Siewert, said: "Many times people asked for the matrix, to be able to see it, to be able to understand the basis on which these decisions were made, but that was not available at the time we voted on the bill."' [13]

Bishop Condie said the Anglican Church tried unsuccessfully to get the Federal Government to make changes to the matrix: "We also wrote expressing our dismay about this to the department and also to the Prime Minister (but) we were told right from the beginning that it was a non-negotiable part of the deal."

In The Herald, survivor and barrister James Miller called for “urgent reforms, including changes to a controversial assessment “matrix” linking financial payouts to types of abuse”, which he claimed ran contrary to the Royal Commission recommendation for assessment to be calculated according to severity and impact. [18]