3.1
This chapter will set out the range of evidence the Senate Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee (the committee) received from submitters regarding the Territories Stolen Generations Redress Scheme (Facilitation) Bill 2021 (the facilitation bill) and the Territories Stolen Generations Redress Scheme (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2021 (the consequential amendments bill).
3.2
The following sections will explore:
support for the Stolen Generations Territories Redress Scheme (the scheme);
comments on the bills; and
matters relating to the design and operation of the scheme not addressed in the bills.
3.3
The chapter will conclude with the committee’s views and final recommendation.
Support for the scheme
3.4
All submitters to the inquiry expressed support for the scheme announced by the Commonwealth Government (the government).
3.5
The Healing Foundation, a national organisation to amplify the voices and experiences of Stolen Generations survivors and their families, advised the committee that it welcomed the establishment of the scheme and supported the intent of the bills.
3.6
At the public hearing, Ms Fiona Cornforth, Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the Healing Foundation, emphasised the immense suffering endured by stolen children who had lost their connection to family, land, culture and language. She described the scheme as 'long-overdue recognition of harm caused'.
3.7
The Northern Territory Stolen Generations Aboriginal Corporation (NTSGAC) advised that it supported the bills, and agreed with the comments made by the Healing Foundation.
3.8
Mrs Maisie Austin, CEO of the NTSGAC, drew the committee's attention to the importance of recognising the ongoing trauma suffered by the survivors of the Stolen Generations and their broader communities.
3.9
Mrs Eileen Cummings, Chairperson of the NTSGAC and a Stolen Generations survivor, highlighted the nature of the trauma:
…in many instances, our mothers weren't told that we were being taken and they just took us. The community didn't know what happened to us. For many years, our people were looking for us but they never had the right or the chance to reconnect with us at that age. So many of us had to go back to our communities looking for our mothers and looking for our people. That's something that has to be recognised. Our mothers and our people didn't have any rights at that time. It was so sad. Many of them died with broken hearts because they never reconnected with their children.
3.10
ANTaR, a national advocacy organisation working for Australia’s First Peoples, commended the government for establishing the scheme. It noted that 'compensation for the generations of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, both children and their parents and families, is long overdue'.
3.11
Shine Lawyers also indicated support for the general intention of the scheme.
3.12
The Law Council of Australia (the Law Council) advised that it welcomed the announcement of the scheme. It stated:
The scheme is an important step forward in recognising the harm caused by the forcible removals of children from their families and culture in these territories, as well as the complex and specific needs of survivors in any path towards healing.
3.13
Additionally, the Law Council noted that it considered the scheme 'an important reflection of the responsibility that rests with the Australian Government under international law to provide effective remedies and just reparations to survivors'.
Comments on the bills
3.14
The Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) welcomed the facilitation bill as 'an important step towards addressing the harm caused by policies of forced removal of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children from their families'.
3.15
In particular, the AHRC welcomed the specifications in the facilitation bill that mean that the redress payment will be 'absolutely inalienable' and will not:
affect a participant’s access to, or eligibility for, any pensions, payments, benefits or services provided by the Commonwealth; or
require the repayment of an amount to the Commonwealth.
3.16
The AHRC also welcomed the clarifications that payments made under the scheme will not affect payments from the National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse or vice versa. It commented:
This approach is consistent with these payments operating as a standalone redress measure, without qualifications.
3.17
When queried by the committee as to why it was important that the redress payment be made inalienable, Emeritus Professor Rosalind Croucher, President of the AHRC, advised:
The redress measure is designed for a specific issue, and to offset it against other issues is not appropriate. It's designed for the impact on people who were removed under the removal policies and their families, and so offsetting it against things that might serve other purposes is not an appropriate measure.
3.18
The Healing Foundation also made comment on the importance of protecting the redress payment:
We've said since the announcement that it's [the scheme] practical support now for the needs that Stolen Generations survivors and their families have now. From speaking with the survivor organisations and networks we work alongside, we know that the amount is welcomed for that practical support. Many did not see the day coming when the scheme would be announced at all for the territories. But what's important here, and what I guess is being addressed through the bills, is that the money is protected. We know through that AIHW [Australian Institute of Health and Wellbeing] report I mentioned before that Stolen Generations survivors are 1.5 times more likely to rely on government payments. So, if this amount is protected, that already is a step above some of the other schemes that have been rolled out across the country.
3.19
In regard to subclauses 4(1), (2) and (4) of the facilitation bill, the Law Council advised that it considered these to be 'appropriate'. It explained:
…it is only fair that members of the Stolen Generations who are currently, or may in future be, in receipt of Centrelink or other Commonwealth-administered social welfare support should not be disadvantaged because they have also received a redress payment. This is in keeping with the purpose of a redress payment.
Treatment of the redress payment in determining the value of assets
3.20
The Law Council raised concern that redress payments may be included for the purposes of determining the value of a person’s assets under the range of legislation set out under subclause 4(3) of the facilitation bill.
3.21
The NTSGAC also stated that it believed that the redress payments should not affect asset testing or income testing for other Commonwealth payments or benefits.
3.22
The Law Council stated that, as a general principle, it considered that it is inappropriate for redress payments to be assessed as part of an assets test. As the submission explained:
This is because the purpose of a redress payment is to recognise the harm of forced removal and facilitate healing, which ought to be a standalone purpose and not impede the assessment of a person’s eligibility for other types of government payments or assistance.
3.23
The Law Council observed that on first impression it appeared to make 'little sense' for the facilitation bill to make a distinction between the treatment of redress payments in income testing versus assets testing.
3.24
However, it ultimately advised:
…the Law Council remains conscious of unintended consequences in making a prima facie judgment on the inclusion or exclusion of this subsection [i.e. subclause 4(3)], and notes that in the timeframe available it has been unable to consider this issue further or make comparisons with other schemes.
3.25
It recommended that the committee seek further advice from the government on this issue.
3.26
The National Indigenous Australians Agency (NIAA) clarified that under clause 4(3) of the facilitation bill, a redress payment under the scheme would count as an asset, a treatment consistent with other redress schemes.
3.27
However, the NIAA strongly emphasised that subclause 4(6) of the facilitation bill contained a mechanism to 'turn off' the redress payment being counted as an asset if necessary.
3.28
As the explanatory memorandum (EM) to the facilitation bill set out:
Subclause 4(6) provides that the regulations may prescribe laws of the Commonwealth to which subclause 4(3) does not apply. The combined effect of prescribing a law by such a regulation and subclause 4(1) would be that, where eligibility for a Commonwealth payment or service in the prescribed law is assets-tested, a redress payment could not be considered in determining the value of a person's assets.
3.29
At the public hearing the NIAA drew the committee's attention to paragraph 26 of the EM which explained:
The ability to prescribe such laws will enable the Commonwealth to adapt the applicability of subclause 4(3) where it is necessary to do so. For example, a law of a Commonwealth could be prescribed where it is appropriate that a redress payment not be considered in determining the value of a person’s asset for the purpose of any assets testing. It is appropriate that there is this flexibility to deal with unintended consequences in administering the Scheme.
3.30
The NIAA confirmed that it would pay particular attention to ensuring that this element of the bill was appropriately explained in order to provide reassurance to applicants:
If there is in any way confusion for applicants or communities, I think that we can ensure that we are very clear about that explanation in our communication when we talk to communities and individuals on the ground.
Matters relating to the design and operation of the scheme not addressed in the bills
3.31
All submitters to the inquiry commented on a number of issues more broadly connected to the design and operation of the scheme.
3.32
Many of these matters related to details of the scheme announced publicly by the government, including:
the inclusion of scheme details in delegated legislation (rather than primary legislation);
the proposed payment amounts;
the eligibility of families of deceased Stolen Generations members to access the scheme;
the timeframe of operation for the scheme;
the accessibility of the scheme;
the support services to be provided; and
the consultation process.
3.33
As noted in Chapter 2 of this report, these elements do not fall within the scope of the bills referred to the committee for inquiry.
3.34
In light of this, the committee will not directly examine or provide comment on these matters.
3.35
However, to assist in contextualising future discussions within the community on the roll-out of the scheme, a brief overview of the evidence is set out below.
Use of delegated legislation
3.36
The Law Council raised concerns with the apparent reliance on delegated legislation to establish key elements of the scheme, including the monetary amounts for the redress payment components.
3.37
It advised that its general position was that significant matters, such as those dealing with substantive policy issues rather than matters that are purely technical or administrative in nature, should be included in primary legislation rather than delegated legislation.
3.38
The Law Council informed the committee that the details of comparable redress schemes (including the amounts that redress entailed and other important considerations such as how members of the relevant cohort of survivors were to be identified or determined) were not delegated.
3.39
On this matter, Mr Anthony McAvoy SC, Chair of the Indigenous Legal Issues Committee within the Law Council, observed the need to provide 'certainty and transparency' for survivors in regard to the scheme. He elaborated:
The Law Council understands that the scheme's lack of legislative detail is directed towards the necessity for urgency and a simple application process. These are worthwhile considerations, which the Law Council supports, but they might be appropriately balanced against the need for certainty and transparency that a legislated scheme provides from the outset for survivors. It would be preferable for key elements of the scheme, such as eligibility criteria, to be outlined in the primary legislation. It is understood that there is intended to be a degree of flexibility. However, that must be weighed against the need for certainty to ensure proper and detailed parliamentary scrutiny.
3.40
The Law Council recommended that the key details of the scheme be outlined in primary legislation. It reasoned that given the 'sheer volume' of delegated legislation that went before the Parliament, it could not be guaranteed that regulations would receive 'the proactive and necessary' scrutiny.
3.41
The AHRC also made mention of the fact that the scheme was to be developed and administered through regulations, and that these regulations are subject to disallowance.
3.42
The AHRC President observed that although information about the intended operation of the scheme had been publicised by the government, ideally the substantive elements of the scheme should be reflected in primary legislation to 'enable stronger scrutiny and accountability'.
3.43
However, noting the approach decided upon by the government, the AHRC provided a number of high-level comments to guide the design of regulations and the implementation of the scheme. These included:
The evidential bar for eligibility should be simple and clear, avoiding overly stringent or complex legalistic approaches.
The approach to the provision of monetary compensation should be consistent with the recommendations of the 1997 Bringing Them Home report.
Compensation should take into account the ongoing, life-long trauma inflicted upon members of the Stolen Generations and their families.
Due to the advanced age of many members of the Stolen Generation, the speed and efficiency of processing applications should be prioritised.
The form of the optional personal apology by a government official should be guided by Stolen Generations groups.
The regulations should not exclude any sub-category of individual affected by child removal policies, such as prisoners.
There should be a process of review available to those who have their claims rejected under the scheme.
Support services funded by the scheme should be delivered by
Aboriginal-controlled organisations and give priority to the provision of legal advice to enable applicants to successfully navigate administrative processes.
3.44
The NIAA clarified that the scheme will be 'largely administrative, with some limited legislation'. It explained that this meant that the content of the scheme would be largely defined outside of legislation and instead contained in policies, procedures and guidelines.
3.45
It explained that the scheme was modelled on the New South Wales Stolen Generations Reparations Scheme (NSW Scheme) which is also administratively based. It advised that this model was chosen because:
it has the minimum of complexity regarding regulation which allows it to be more flexible and able to be changed to benefit applicants, where necessary;
it reduces the administration and time to establish the scheme (i.e. the need to draft and pass substantial legislation); and
it allows a streamlined application process to enable applications to be processed quickly.
3.46
The NIAA emphasised that an administrative model provided greater flexibility in operational terms, as any unintended consequences of the scheme could mostly be addressed through new or updated policies, procedures and guidelines. In contrast, any changes to the operations of a legislated scheme would require amendments to the legislation to be drafted and passed through Parliament.
3.47
Additionally, the NIAA informed the committee that an administrative model provided the flexibility to engage with stakeholders on issues of design, implementation and operation, enabling a co-design approach through the life of the scheme. It noted that this approach allowed for flexibility to swiftly manage and adapt the scheme to the varied circumstances that applicants may face. It noted that this could include circumstances where there is a lack documentary evidence to support an application. It explained:
The poor historical record keeping practices relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are well known. In implementing the Scheme, where issues relating to documentary evidence are identified, an administrative scheme allows the flexibility to address this promptly during the administration of the Scheme.
3.48
The Healing Foundation affirmed that establishing the scheme by regulation (rather than by legislation) afforded an opportunity for co-design with Stolen Generations survivors. The CEO noted:
…that the scheme facilitation bill provides for establishing the scheme by regulation rather than by legislation. This provides an opportunity to co-design the scheme in partnership with Stolen Generation survivors and the organisations they work alongside, and to enable adjustments, if needed, during implementation. A need for flexibility is a key lesson from the recent independent review of the National Redress Scheme [for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse].
3.49
The NIAA further explained that, while largely administrative in nature, the scheme would still be reviewed as it progressed:
The scheme here is unlike the National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse; it's not a comprehensive piece of legislation. It is largely an administrative scheme. Therefore, unlike a comprehensive piece of legislation with an inbuilt review mechanism, it's the mere structures of the legislation to enable this administrative scheme to go forward. Of course, as that scheme is administered, it will no doubt continue to undergo review by parliament, in Senate estimates and in other processes. But it wasn't seen as part of something where you have an absolute comprehensive bill setting out everything in the bill itself over a period of time that would then need to come back and be reviewed.
3.50
The NIAA also pointed to the existence of an external advisory body which would provide 'governance and oversight throughout the administration of the scheme'.
Eligibility of families of deceased Stolen Generations members
3.51
Submitters raised several points regarding the eligibility for the scheme, including the need to consider deceased Stolen Generations members and their families.
3.52
For example, Shine Lawyers stated that by excluding deceased members of the Stolen Generations, the scheme would fail to properly recognise the intergenerational harm cause by the forced removals.
3.53
Additionally, they reported that they had been contacted by families feeling dishonoured due to the exclusion of deceased relatives from the scheme.
3.54
Shine Lawyers recommended that consideration be given to extending the scheme to include (in both financial and non-financial terms) the families of members of the Stolen Generations who had passed away.
3.55
Mr Joshua Creamer, barrister for Shine Lawyers, contextualised the reasoning for this recommendation by highlighting the intergenerational impact of trauma:
If a traumatic event happens in a family, it affects three generations. But we know factually, from sitting down with people—family members, children, sometimes great-grandchildren—the impacts that they suffer from what occurred to their family member. There's so much trauma that rests in these families. Really that's the issue. This didn't just happen to a single family member and then everyone else was fine. This had a flow-on impact.
3.56
Mr Tristan Gaven, Special Counsel at Shine Lawyers, further explained the recommendation:
In the work we've done we've spoken to hundreds of people, and it's this consistent story of dislocation, of loss of connection to kin and country, and of a loss of identity in general. That started with those people that were removed, but, because of that severing of the connection, it has continued through each of the subsequent generations. Some of the most passionate people we've spoken to about this issue have been the children of survivors who have passed away. I think that level of acknowledgement of an opportunity to tell their story and receive an apology is something that is critical to at least start healing or mending the wounds of those removals. Limiting it to those survivors is, in our submission, a mistake. It's something that really should be expanded.
3.57
The Law Council also informed the committee it strongly supported extending the scheme to allow applications to be brought on behalf of deceased members of the Stolen Generations, including those who passed away before the announcement of the scheme.
3.58
While acknowledging the NIAA advice that if an eligible applicant passes away between 5 August 2021 and 1 March 2022, their family or estate may apply in their stead, the AHRC suggested that if an applicant passes away at any time throughout the length of the scheme, their families/estates should be able to apply. It explained:
Some applicants will not be aware of the existence of the Scheme or their eligibility, and if they pass away during the operation of the Scheme before they apply, they/their families may be arbitrarily denied redress that would otherwise have been provided.
Payments
3.59
The Law Council voiced concern that the proposed amounts for the redress payments may not be sufficient and drew attention to the differing amounts offered in comparable schemes. It commented:
The Law Council considers that inconsistency in payments between redress schemes in different jurisdictions at different times and for different types of trauma survivors is regrettable.
3.60
The NTSGAC echoed the concerns of the Law Council on this matter, and emphasised that NT Stolen Generations had 'fought, lobbied and advocated for over 30 years for recognition and compensation'. It commented:
NT Stolen Generations peoples feel that no financial value can be put on the suffering and trauma they experienced as a result of the forcible removal and which they continue to experience in their later years. They feel the amount offered is a pittance, especially in view of the amount claimants in other schemes such as the National Redress Scheme for people who experienced institutional child sexual abuse can receive a maximum payment of $150,000 for example.
3.61
The NTSGAC drew attention to the advanced age and ill health of many NT Stolen Generations survivors and stated :
Due to their current situations, NT Stolen Generations survivors agreed to the payment of $75,000 plus $7,000 because they felt they had no other choice. If they did not accept this payment, they could be fighting and waiting for more years, which many of them do not have left.
3.62
The AHRC recommended that the approach to the provision of monetary compensation should be consistent with the recommendations of the 1997 Bringing Them Home report, which itself drew on the Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of Human Rights and Humanitarian Law. The AHRC advised:
Compensation should take into account the ongoing, life-long trauma inflicted upon members of the Stolen Generations and their families. The Bringing Them Home report found that the history and effects of forced removals requires reparations that recognise the effects of removal on Indigenous communities as a whole, the families (including descendants) of children forcibly removed, and the children themselves.
3.63
On this matter, the Law Council also drew the committee’s attention to the recommendations contained in the Bringing Them Home report.
Timeframe and reviews of operation
3.64
The Law Council offered feedback in regard to the timeframe of the scheme's operation, as well as the need to ensure reviews of the scheme.
3.65
In regard to the latter point, it recommended that there be legislated mandatory two-yearly reviews of the scheme’s operation to assess its effectiveness and make appropriate improvements. It noted that under section 192 of the National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Act 2018, such reviews are legislated for the National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse.
3.66
The Law Council considered that the proposed timeframe for the scheme (1 March 2022 until 30 June 2026) may be too short and suggested that a timeframe of six to eight years would be more appropriate. It noted that the National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse has a much longer period of operation of a notional 10 years, between 1 July 2018 and 2028.
3.67
The NTSGAC echoed these concerns.
3.68
To address this matter, the Law Council recommended:
Given the need for survivors to learn about the scheme, receive information, advice and trauma-informed support, the Law Council considers that a notional window should be provided for between 2022 and 2030. Further, it considers a longer time period would ease concern about potential delays with the scheme, which may be either unforeseen or associated with the COVID-19 pandemic.
Accessibility
3.69
Submitters reiterated the importance of maximising the accessibility of the scheme. For example, Shine Lawyers noted:
Schemes of this nature have historically had issues regarding accessibility. That is to say that the people that the scheme was created for can have difficulty accessing the scheme for a range of reasons. This has the impact of further disenfranchising victims while undermining the purpose of the scheme itself.
3.70
Ms Janice Saddler, Head of Class Actions at Shine Lawyers, detailed the importance of reaching potential scheme participants:
The objective must be to ensure that as many people as possible receive as much of the money that Treasury has allocated towards this reparations scheme. That will only be done, in our submission, by people being on the ground, meeting people on country, in face-to-face meetings, and going out to engage with them, rather than expecting the people who are to be the beneficiaries of this reparations scheme to find ways of accessing it.
3.71
The AHRC also emphasised that information about the scheme must be adequately communicated in accessible forms to those who may be eligible (including in language and disability accessible), alongside information about how to access support services.
3.72
Mr Nick Devereaux, Director of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice at the AHRC explained:
…the success of the scheme is dependent on the provision of sufficient, culturally safe services to support applicants and accessible communication of information about the scheme to potential applicants. I think some of those issues you raised before around language, remoteness, access to information and technology all come into play. I think it's very important that proper funding be provided to Aboriginal controlled organisations to undertake support and communication measures.
3.73
ANTaR suggested that in addition to simple announcements, community forums could be utilised to publicise the details of the scheme (including when and how to apply) and facilitate individual, personalised support for applicants.
Consultation and lessons from previous schemes
3.74
Submitters highlighted the need for quality and sustained consultation with relevant stakeholders to ensure that the operation of the scheme aligned with its intentions.
3.75
For example, the AHRC stated that members of the Stolen Generations should be closely involved in the development and roll-out of the scheme. Mr Devereaux underscored why the concept of 'co-design' was an important principle underlying the scheme:
Co-design speaks to rights that are enshrined in the UN [United Nations] Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples—rights to self-determination and participation in decision-making. I think that it's not only about those rights but it's around the efficacy of the scheme, so that the process is accessible, simple and culturally safe. Getting to those points will require the involvement of First Nations people in the design, necessarily.
3.76
ANTaR emphasised that redress must have healing and reconciliation 'at the heart of its purpose' and to do so any scheme must consider the intergenerational trauma and continuing implications caused by the forced removal policies. It noted:
Ultimately, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities must be listened to in relation to any changes and improvements needed for the proposed redress scheme.
3.77
Submitters also emphasised the need to draw lessons from the operations of previous state redress schemes.
3.78
In regard to these matters, the NIAA advised that it would be working closely with the Healing Foundation and other organisations to ensure the scheme was delivered in a 'trauma-informed and culturally sensitive manner'.
3.79
As Ms Andrea Kelly, Acting Group Manager for Social Policy and Programs at the NIAA, summarised at the public hearing:
We're [the NIAA] absolutely committed to making sure that the process that we do goes to the co-design [of the scheme]. From a public servant perspective, from an agency perspective, that means doing that absolutely hand in hand with those individuals and their families and making sure that we get the outcome for them.
3.80
The NIAA reiterated the government's intention to establish an external advisory board to function as a central point for consultation:
The responsibilities of the board will be to guide and monitor the scheme throughout the establishment and the implementation phases. The remit of the board will be to monitor and inform the establishment, the policy development and the implementation and to guide the scheme's operational components to ensure it best meets the needs of stolen generations survivors—for example, the design of the application form and the direct personal response process. It's also to provide critical advice on the scheme's implementation and rollout to ensure… that it's delivered in a very trauma-informed and culturally sensitive way.
3.81
The NIAA also provided detail on its work with the Healing Foundation on the scheme:
The Healing Foundation, in its role in partnering with Stolen Generations survivors and organisations to address the ongoing trauma caused by forced removal of children from their families, is well placed to ensure the Scheme operates to best meet the needs of Stolen Generations survivors. The Healing Foundation consults regularly and extensively with Stolen Generations organisations about issues impacting and relevant to members of the Stolen Generations and their families.
Consultation with key Stolen Generations organisations is occurring during the establishment period to ensure that the Scheme delivers on being survivor-focussed and trauma-informed, and that support is available for those participating in the Scheme.
3.82
Ms Cornforth of the Healing Foundation explained to the committee how her organisation intended to focus its contribution in the space:
Being a part of the expert group to work alongside the agency and the government, our mission and our contribution as part of this expert group is to ensure that no further harm is done. Obviously, it's not always possible to ensure that, but that's our role, which we take quite seriously. It's ensuring we have that evidence to draw from about any potential harm and risk for survivors.
3.83
The NIAA additionally noted that it continues to engage with both the Department of Social Services and the Department of Defence about their respective redress schemes (i.e. the National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse, and the Defence Reparations Scheme, including its predecessor, the Defence Abuse Response Taskforce) so that any learnings may be applied to the scheme. The NIAA also advised it was engaging with Aboriginal Affairs NSW in relation to the NSW Scheme.
Committee view
3.84
The committee considers the establishment of the Territories Stolen Generations Redress Scheme to be a significant, practical step in Australia's journey to reconciliation.
3.85
The committee understands that the scheme is intended to recognise the harm caused by forced removal from family for Stolen Generations survivors, and assist with the healing of trauma.
3.86
The committee is pleased to see that, as evidenced by the bills, care has been taken in the design of the scheme to ensure that participants will not be adversely affected by receiving a redress payment.
3.87
In particular, the committee is pleased that the bills will ensure that redress payments will be absolutely inalienable and that participants will receive the full benefit of the payments.
3.88
The committee is satisfied that the bills contain appropriate flexibility to deal with any unintended consequences that may arise in administering the scheme.
3.89
The committee encourages the NIAA to ensure that it explains particular mechanisms of the bill (for example, relating to the treatment of redress payments in determining the value of assets) in clear, practical terms to avoid unnecessary distress or confusion for the Stolen Generations community.
3.90
The committee acknowledges the evidence from submitters in regard to broader elements of the scheme, including the amount of the redress payments, the timeframe of the scheme's operation, the support services on offer, and matters relating to eligibility of participants and accessibility of the application process.
3.91
Given that the bills under inquiry do not address such details of the scheme, the committee considers it appropriate to refrain from commenting directly on these matters.
3.92
However, the committee strongly encourages the NIAA as the administering agency to take submitter feedback into consideration in the roll-out of the scheme.
3.93
It is reassured by evidence indicating that the NIAA will continue to consult closely with the Healing Foundation and other stakeholders, in particular members of the Stolen Generations.
3.94
In summary, the committee is satisfied that the measures provided in the bills will effectively facilitate the operation and implementation of certain aspects of the scheme, and allow the scheme to achieve its goals.
3.95
The committee is of the view that the bills support the survivor-focused and trauma-informed approach of the scheme, and that the resulting operation of the scheme will positively impact the health and wellbeing of Stolen Generations survivors, their families and communities.
3.96
The committee recommends that the bills be passed.
Senator Claire Chandler
Chair