Current state |
Improved state |
| Settlement payments and apologies | Increase settlement payments and improve apologies |
| Payment amounts do not meaningfully acknowledge the abuse survivors experienced and the impact | A 50 per cent increase in average payments to $30,000 |
|
Apologies that do not take direct responsibility for what happened |
Apologies that take responsibility for what happened |
|
Redress offerings and support |
Consistent redress offerings and support |
|
Different approaches and sometimes complex tools for determining payment |
Similar payments for similar experiences |
|
Different settlement payments for similar experiences |
A common payment framework with clear payment steps and definitions |
|
Case management to support survivors through the claims process |
Case management to support survivors through the claims process |
|
Variation in support offerings from different agencies |
Consistent but not increased value of support offerings |
|
Difficult to access and understand records, including redacted information |
Shared principles in agencies to drive improved recordkeeping practice by care agencies |
|
Limited guidance about what legal fees should be covered, inconsistences in what is paid |
A common legal fees framework that ensures a fair, consistent and transparent approach to meeting survivors |
|
Operating model, governance and oversight |
Consistent operating model, governance and oversight |
|
Multiple claims agencies that operate independently with limited coordination and cooperation |
Multiple claims agencies which operate more collectively as a system |
|
Individual agency governance and Ministerial oversight |
Shared governance and Ministerial oversight of all State claims processes |
|
Individual and inconsistent monitoring and reporting, no centralised view of the performance |
System wide transparent reporting, incorporating survivors insights |
| Existing Alternative Dispute Resolution process | Retaining the existing Alternative Dispute Resolution process and scope |
| An Alternative Dispute Resolution process that provides redress to survivors of abuse in care of core State agencies for physical, sexual and emotional abuse and neglect | An Alternative Dispute Resolution that provides redress to survivors of abuse in care of core State agencies for physical, sexual and emotional abuse and neglect |
| System capacity and assessment processes | Increase capacity and streamline assessment processes |
| Long wait times for some survivors and variations in how long it takes for a claim to be allocated for assessment (from immediately to up to over two years) |
Increase in redress system’s annual processing capacity from the current level of approximately 1550 to 2000 per year from 2026/27 and 2150 per year from 2027/28 |
|
Assessment processes that are timely and costly but do not affect the payment a survivor receives |
Reduced wait times (assuming current demand does not significantly increase), ongoing variation in wait times for claims to be allocated, a coordinated approach taken to assessing claims that sit across multiple agencies |
|
Efficient and lower cost assessment processes and easy to apply payments frameworks that enables more claims to be progressed faster without compromising survivors’ experiences and outcomes |
|
Access and navigation around the system |
Integrating and aligning key elements of redress processes |
|
Navigating a complex system with different entry points to register a claim |
A simple consistent easy process for survivors to register claims that includes a single entry point to core State claims processes |
|
Complex, time consuming, and distressing to repeat information to multiple people and/or agencies when registering claims |
One point of contact and single claim irrespective whether it includes one or multiple agencies |
|
Different operational policies and processes |
A single set of operational policies for all State agencies |
|
Independent advice within claims process and review processes |
Introducing independent review where survivors are unhappy with a claim outcome |
|
Processes for seeking review of proposed settlement payments outside of these agencies are lengthy, time consuming and resource intensive (Ombudsman or Courts) |
Easier and more timely process for the independent review of claims outcomes while retaining Ombudsman and Court options |
