ABUSE ROYAL COMMISSION - REDRESS SCHEME
WHAT'S ABOUT TO HAPPEN:
* On Monday, the federal government will receive recommendations for a redress scheme for child sex abuse victims.
* The Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse is likely to recommend a government-run multi-billion dollar national scheme.
* But with both money and politics involved, the states would have to hand over power to the commonwealth - and not everyone agrees this is the way to go.
HOW STATES & TERRITORIES HAVE RESPONDED SO FAR:
* The federal government, states and territories made recommendations to the commission in written submissions in January, following a consultation process
* The federal government said it didn't have the power to set up or operate a national scheme and it had no role as funder of last resort: "The institutions in which children were abused should bear responsibility for redress."
* NSW said it was examining options for a redress scheme and would be open for discussion with other jurisdictions about a national scheme, including contributions from the Commonwealth, state and territory governments and non-government organisations.
* Victoria said it was going to release its own public consultation paper on redress, based on the report Betrayal Of Trust which came out of the state inquiry into child abuse in institutions. It has since released that paper but said a state scheme would not preclude Victoria from taking part in a national scheme.
* South Australia said it would not support a national redress scheme or a state scheme to be used by government and non-government institutions. It said it had already provided redress to victims who were in state care. However, it did support consistency in the application of state redress schemes.
* Western Australia only noted the commission's consultation paper.
* Northern Territory supported in principle a national scheme to ensure no variation in levels of redress, arguing this would give greater ability to co-ordinate contributions by non-government institutions.
* Tasmania had doubts about a national scheme. It pointed out the states had not said they would agree to refer powers to the commonwealth and the federal government had not indicated it wanted this. However, guiding principles to shape legislative reform were needed, it said.
* Queensland did not make a written submission nor did the ACT.
(Source: submissions)
Share
