Urgent QLD Review of Participation in National Redress Scheme for Victims of Historical Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Qld Gov Reference : DET/ECP - TF/I7/635 − 17/38709 Request Review / Consultation “National Redress Scheme” 1. Victims of Historical Institutional Child Sexual Abuse respectfully request that the Queensland Premier URGENTLY instigate a REVIEW and CONSULTATION of participation in the proposed “National Redress Scheme,” for Queensland victims. 2. There is likely no need to reiterate that one of the Terms of Reference underpinning the Australian Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse is victim “Redress.” However the final what, how and when of “Redress” is still yet to be determined. 3. In communication dated 9 March 2017 Qld Gov Reference : DET/ECP - TF/I7/635 − 17/38709 Mark Biddulph, Deputy Chief of Staff Parliament and Policy accepted that Queensland Governments participation in proposed “National Redress Scheme,” is yet to be determined. Two months have now elapsed. There has not been a recent formal statement from the Queensland Premier, unless this position has drastically changed in the interim, it is assumed that participation in the proposed “National Redress Scheme,” by the Queensland Government is still subject to further consideration. The Queensland Government is committed to working with the Federal Government on its redress scheme, but there are limited details available about the proposed scheme at this time. The Queensland Government is examining the available details proposed by the Federal Government, and when further information is made available, will determine whether the scheme is in the best possible interests of survivors of Queensland. The redress scheme is anticipated to involve non−government institutions such as grammar schools. 4. Queensland victims of historical Institutional Child Sex Abuse put forward the case that the “National Redress Scheme” in its current form is not deliverable and will not meet the needs of the vast majority of victims in Queensland. A review is therefore urgently needed and should be led by the Queensland Premier. Why an Urgent Review? 5. Since the Royal Commission’s Consultation and publication in 2015 of a “National Redress Scheme,” two years have now elapsed. Large groups of victims of Historical Institutional sexual Abuse have not been able to access any financial assistance to support and aid rehabilitation and recovery. This is in stark contrast to the $1/2 billion spent on the Royal Commission that has largely been pocketed by already wealthy lawyers. This is totally unacceptable to victims of the most horrific crimes when large groups of victims are still left without financial support. The Cynical can only concluded that lawyers have so far pocketed the financial benefits leaving victims as beggars. 6. The proposed “National Redress Scheme,” in its current form is highly unlikely to offer victims the level of assistance needed. It is almost certain to be very complex to administer. As victims are currently finding institutions like Brisbane Grammar School in Case Study 34 are attempting to cost shift the financial burden onto the public pursue. Brisbane Grammar School have refusing to support victims financially and surely this is not within the “Spirit” of the Royal Commission for victims to continue to wait until the “National Redress Scheme,” is operational. This is totally unacceptable to victims who want institutions to be at least in part directly accountable for financial losses suffered by so many victims. 7. School insurance underwriters, Institutional assets and Trustees and members of an institution’s community should be the first point of call in financial restoration of losses directly suffered by victims, rather than cost shifting onto the public purse. 8. All victims should have an opportunity to present their direct losses to an institution and for an institution to make good those losses. This is very different to the mechanics of Brisbane Grammar School’s interpretation of “National Redress Scheme.” It appears to victims that as Brisbane Grammar School are refusing to consider further claims against the School as Trustees refuse to refund School fees, the institution is expecting the “National Redress Scheme” to make good all victims quantum losses without further claims against the School. 9. Social inequality of the most vulnerable victims of child sexual abuse can only be addressed if the enormous true financial cost is accepted by Federal and State Governments, Institutions and the wider community. Much of the focus of the Royal Commission has been directed towards Institutions and the perpetrators, but the reasons for systemic child sexual abuse are complex and extend well beyond the perpetrator and the Institution a victim may have attended. A comprehensive financial package is required to even up this pervasive social divide that has left large numbers of victims in social deprivation for so many years. 10. It is noted from the Royal Commission s “Redress and Civil Litigation” Consultation page 271 on Funding Structure of Redress, that Queensland Government did not participate in the Royal Commission’s consultation on “Redress.” It is not clear why Queensland Government did not submit nor participate directly in those early discussions with the Royal Commission that have formed the basis of the proposed “National Redress Scheme.” The Queensland Government did not provide a written submission or speak at the public hearing 11. It should also be noted that the there was a clear failure in the methodology used by the Royal Commission in consulting with Stakeholders, as the views of victims were not in fact sought in terms of “Redress.” It is victims who should have been consulted extensively in the design of a “Redress Scheme” that meets the needs and expectations of so many victims. In the Consultation Paper, we invited submissions on issues of structure and funding for redress. We particularly sought the views of: • the Australian Government and state and territory governments on the preferred structure for providing redress • the Australian Government, state and territory governments and institutions on how redress should be funded 12. It is not clear why the Royal Commission accepted the “National Redress Scheme” in its proposed form when representation as stated by the Commission received from the Australian Government was in fact critical of the ability to deliver a “National Redress Scheme,” Complexity in negotiating agreements with so many stakeholders was note as a major hurdle to a “National Redress Scheme.” These concerns are very real given the inordinate length of time the process has already taken and victims are none the wiser. The Australian Government stated a number of concerns about a national redress scheme, as follows: • ‘seeking to establish a single national redress scheme would be extremely complex and would require significant time and resources to establish. This is likely to be frustrating to survivors of child sexual abuse and to undermine community confidence in the outcomes of the Royal Commission’s work’524 • ‘a national scheme would require protracted and complex negotiations with the State and Territory governments (as well as other stakeholders)’525 • victims of crime schemes and health services that are part of the redress model are, or are likely to be, delivered by states and territories, and determining a redress scheme for child sexual abuse that operates in a consistent manner nationally, over the top of existing state and territory measures, will require significant negotiation with and between those jurisdictions’526 • the source of legislative power for the Australian Government to operate a national redress scheme is uncertain and, while states and territories could refer power to the Commonwealth, ‘this could again be expected to require complex and protracted negotiations before national uniformity was achieved’527 • new systems, structures and processes would be required to implement a national redress scheme. A new bureaucracy, including frontline staff, primary and reviewing decision makers and enforcement officers, would be required. ‘The establishment of these arrangements would be time-consuming, further frustrating survivors and the broader community’ and would likely ‘overlap with, or at least duplicate, state or territory based victims of crime and similar administrative units’. 13. It is therefore put forward that a complete review is needed for victims in Queensland. A “Redress Scheme,” that meets the needs of victims surely must be the overriding primary objective. Social Deprivation Indicators of Victims 14. By far the large majority of victims of child sexual abuse report many and if not all of these social deprivation indicators : living well below the poverty line with well below average expected life chances. Living away from family and friends, family breakups, homelessness, social isolation are all hallmarks of victims of child sexual abuse. Drug and or alcohol dependence, inability to work and or highly unstable work history, living in low wage and low income house-holds is pervasive amongst survivors. Victims typically do not have any pension provision and or insurance provision to draw from. The lifeline of parents has been exhausted. Victims are more likely to have a criminal history with prison terms and likely to have been involved in prostitution and or addictive gambling habits. Victims typically have high levels of debt, Court debt judgements, inability to borrow money and or paying very high interest to money sharks. Regular harassment from debt collectors seeking repayments of debts further complicates the highly chaotic lives of survivors. Victims typically live in substandard and over-crowded accommodation, suffer from low self esteem and poor image, PTSD, Flashbacks, anxiety, panic attacks, insomnia, regular headaches and migraines, tinnitus, cancer and other chronic and debilitating long term health conditions. Suicidal thoughts and or suicide attempts are a common feature. Victims are highly likely to have known other victims of sexual abuse who have committed suicide. 15. It would be an injustice to so many victims if a comprehensive package of long term “Redress” did not form the overriding objective of a “Redress Scheme.” The current proposal is lacking in its depth of provision to so many victims. Responsibility / Accountability 16. Horrific crimes have been committed against large numbers of people who attended Queensland institutions over decades. It can’t be denied by the Queensland Premier that there has been systemic cover-up of those crimes both intentionally and unintentionally. Institutions most certainly should be held accountable and not attempt to pass the buck, but this also applies to Governments, Regulators and the Judicial system. 17. Victims want Institutions and the government to feel directly accountable and responsible for the future well-being of each and every victim of child sexual abuse. 18. Despite serious findings against Brisbane Grammar School by the Royal Commission in Case Study 34, there does not seem to be any sense of the Queensland Government being willing nor able to hold the Trustees of Brisbane Grammar School to account for perpetuating systemic cover-ups of child sexual abuse. Other Royal Commission Case Studies are likely to echo similar sentiments that institutions are still not being held to account by relevant authorities. This sits very uneasy with so many victims when those who have contributed to perpetuating the crimes against so many people are not prepared to remove themselves as a sign of respect to all the victims. National Victims of Crime Conference 19. It is the view of victims that a special session at the National Victims of Crime Conference being held in Brisbane in September 2017 and supported by the Qld Department of Justice and Attorney should include a panel debate on “Redress” for victims of historical institutional child sexual abuse. “Redress” for victims is likely to be the largest criminal settlement of its kind with thousands of victims involved. There has been little engaging discussion between Stakeholders and victims in order for all the different views be considered. Victims want a voice in the whole process and yet feel as though those in a position of authority to act are not listening to the concerns and voices of victims. 20. It is proposed that the Queensland Premier support a “Victims of historical institutional child sexual abuse” “Unconference.” Proposed to be held on Sunday 3 September 2017, prior to the National Conference. The purpose would be for victims to share views privately online and come together physical in small groups across Queensland to formulate what victims as a collective voice want from a “Redress Scheme.” Insights gathered from the “Unconference” could then feed into a special panel discussion at the National Victims of Crime Conference that could then be used to better inform the Queensland Premier in deciding to either support the current proposed “National Redress Scheme” or work collaboratively with victims to agree a framework for a Queensland based “Redress” that may better meets the needs of victims. Summary 21. Victims of historical Institutional child sexual abuse are concerned that the “National Redress Scheme” as proposed does not meet the needs of victims and is not deliverable. 22. Victims call on the Queensland Premier to instigate an immediate review by directly consulting with victims to determine the type of “Redress,” that may better meet the needs of victims 23. Queensland Premier consider supporting a Victim “Unconference,” to be held ideally on Sunday 3 September 2017 prior to the National Victims of Crime Conference. 24. Queensland Department of Justice and Attorney General consider leading a panel discussion on “Redress” at the National Victims of Crime Conference. Views from victims from the “Unconference,” be feed into the proposed panel discussion at the National Conference. 25. The Queensland Premier review the results of consulting with victims on what type of “Redress” fits the needs of victims and table a policy document in Qld Parliament. Statement by Victims in Royal Commission Case Study 34 Signature Lynch Victim Respond via email to : lynchvictim@gmail.com