Some child sexual abuse survivors may be borrowing money believing they will soon be paid compensation under a national redress scheme that will not become a reality, a victims' support group says.
A number of the most abused and damaged survivors wrongly believe they will receive $150,000 in compensation under the federal government's redress scheme on July 1, a Senate inquiry heard.
A West Australian support group for children who grew up in out-of-home care said there has been a steady stream of inquiries from people who clearly believe it is a matter of when, not if, they receive a payment through the Commonwealth's scheme.
"Most concerning are the reports of survivors taking out extra credit cards, borrowing money and making financial promises based on a belief that they will be receiving a Commonwealth redress payment in the near future," a Tuart Place submission said.
An expert told the inquiry very few people will get the maximum $150,000 payment.
News that makes sense
Your trusted source for staying up-to-date with the world around you. Get free daily news updates and analysis, straight to your inbox.
The scheme currently only covers about 1000 people abused in Commonwealth institutions - or about two per cent of potential applicants - unless all states, churches and charities sign on.
Tuart Place director Dr Philippa White said there is no national redress scheme and it will not happen, noting South Australia's firm opposition.
"State-based schemes are better than nothing and if that's what we end up with then that's better than nothing," she told a public hearing.
But Knowmore legal service executive officer Warren Strange said that would continue the "lottery of redress" based on where the victim was abused and the state or institution's stance on redress.
"We've seen situations where siblings have had similar experiences but one's been on one side of the border and one on the other, and someone's got redress and the other one hasn't," he said.
"A truly national scheme that eliminates as far as possible those inconsistencies and that inherent unfairness around eligibility and around access to redress - it's vital."
