Australian Abuse Redress Scheme 1, Irish Abuse Redress Scheme 0

Lumpy Talbot

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 30, 2015
Messages
29,019
Twitter
No
Following on from the Royal Commission of Inquiry into abuses at both state and religious institutions which are covered in other threads I have in particular been watching for how Australia deals with its clerical orders in particular, given the Irish state's abysmal failure to extract even the agreed proportion of funding for redress from the orders in Ireland, many of whom are asset rich in the billions.

Reading through the Final Actuarial Report element of the Australian Royal Commission inquiry I am struck by two notable differences in the Australian attitude to redress schemes. The first is that the Government of Australia is regarded as the final or last resort for funding the schemes on behalf of religious orders and the actuarial report makes it plain that it does not regard itself as a fallback for the major churches featured such as the catholic church or anglican church.

Link: http://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/documents/final-actuarial-report-(1).pdf

The second item that caught my attention was that the Irish redress schemes are referenced- primarily in an examination of administration costs per claim the Irish scheme is estimated to have cost double the cost of the Australian proposed scheme per claim- mainly because of its involvement of a legalistic approach and the costs associated with Redress Inquiry Boards.

I recall something of a scandal when it transpired that the appointees to the Irish redress boards travelling around the country were charging up considerable expenses- something of a caravan of expensive hotel stays and subsistence claims.

Beyond that some of the tables in the actuarial report are of interest in the wider debate about incidences of abuse and in stats around estimates of reported abuses.

Table 3C on page 74 is an interesting one that compares incidence of abuse reports church-by-church which makes sobering reading.

'Proportions of Abuse within Faith-Based Institutions

Anglican 13%
Catholic 67%
Methodist 6%

and other denominations down under the 5% line.

The Irish redress schemes are mentioned here and there in the document. My own interest is in watching how the Aussie government handle the inevitable backsliding by the RCC organisations on contribution. They seem very firmly of the view that the RCC will stump up and the government there, unlike the Irish government, will not be making redress payments on its behalf thereby allowing it to welsh on any payments afterwards.

Noticeable also is that the Aussie paperwork seems to refer to catholic church institutions as a whole and does not seem to be caught up in whether catholic orders were separate legally from the RCC or not as happened in Ireland.
 


talkingshop

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 9, 2011
Messages
26,677
Following on from the Royal Commission of Inquiry into abuses at both state and religious institutions which are covered in other threads I have in particular been watching for how Australia deals with its clerical orders in particular, given the Irish state's abysmal failure to extract even the agreed proportion of funding for redress from the orders in Ireland, many of whom are asset rich in the billions.

Reading through the Final Actuarial Report element of the Australian Royal Commission inquiry I am struck by two notable differences in the Australian attitude to redress schemes. The first is that the Government of Australia is regarded as the final or last resort for funding the schemes on behalf of religious orders and the actuarial report makes it plain that it does not regard itself as a fallback for the major churches featured such as the catholic church or anglican church.

Link: http://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/documents/final-actuarial-report-(1).pdf

The second item that caught my attention was that the Irish redress schemes are referenced- primarily in an examination of administration costs per claim the Irish scheme is estimated to have cost double the cost of the Australian proposed scheme per claim- mainly because of its involvement of a legalistic approach and the costs associated with Redress Inquiry Boards.

I recall something of a scandal when it transpired that the appointees to the Irish redress boards travelling around the country were charging up considerable expenses- something of a caravan of expensive hotel stays and subsistence claims.

Beyond that some of the tables in the actuarial report are of interest in the wider debate about incidences of abuse and in stats around estimates of reported abuses.

Table 3C on page 74 is an interesting one that compares incidence of abuse reports church-by-church which makes sobering reading.

'Proportions of Abuse within Faith-Based Institutions

Anglican 13%
Catholic 67%
Methodist 6%

and other denominations down under the 5% line.

The Irish redress schemes are mentioned here and there in the document. My own interest is in watching how the Aussie government handle the inevitable backsliding by the RCC organisations on contribution. They seem very firmly of the view that the RCC will stump up and the government there, unlike the Irish government, will not be making redress payments on its behalf thereby allowing it to welsh on any payments afterwards.

Noticeable also is that the Aussie paperwork seems to refer to catholic church institutions as a whole and does not seem to be caught up in whether catholic orders were separate legally from the RCC or not as happened in Ireland.
Another hopeless OP - what exact point are you making, or what should people be discussing? From a quick look this Aussie national redress is only for sexual abuse, whereas ours was far broader. Also I see nothing about the RCC contributing.

Nocookies | The Australian

Please detail the specific ways the Aussie Scheme is better than the Irish scheme. (Or will I take a wild guess here that you know nothing about either scheme...).
 

Lumpy Talbot

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 30, 2015
Messages
29,019
Twitter
No
for the benefit of the hard-of-reading;

(1) the Aussie scheme does not include a proposal that the state or states in Australia's case should pay out on behalf of the religious institutions but should be regarded as a fallback only for the smaller faith based institutions or sports clubs who only have a current voluntary income. That would exclude Rome Inc, or Anglican Inc.

(2) The administration cost of the scheme in Australia is projected to be half that of the Irish scheme mostly because they aren't inclined to appoint a whole load of carpetbaggers on expenses to tour the country as gatekeepers to the scheme.

(3) There doesn't seem in Australia to be much distinction between the catholic orders and the catholic church per se in the documentation around the Royal Commission.
 

Lumpy Talbot

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 30, 2015
Messages
29,019
Twitter
No
The final projected cost in Australia at the moment according to the actuaries is somewhere around AUS$ 3.7 billion.

The relevance here will be to watch how this scheme is run and administered. The report linked in the OP observes that the Irish redress scheme costs per claim were double what the Aussie costs per claim will be.

Always interesting to compare and contrast similar issues and how they are handled in countries other than one's own and of course the Aussie actuaries' report does reference the Irish scheme.

Not lauded as an ideal model I might add although they seem to me to be avoiding the central 'error of judgement' made in Ireland of proposing to put the Irish taxpayers' arse in the air from day one for the church to further abuse- to add insult nationally to specific historical injuries.
 

talkingshop

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 9, 2011
Messages
26,677
for the benefit of the hard-of-reading;

(1) the Aussie scheme does not include a proposal that the state or states in Australia's case should pay out on behalf of the religious institutions but should be regarded as a fallback only for the smaller faith based institutions or sports clubs who only have a current voluntary income. That would exclude Rome Inc, or Anglican Inc.

(2) The administration cost of the scheme in Australia is projected to be half that of the Irish scheme mostly because they aren't inclined to appoint a whole load of carpetbaggers on expenses to tour the country as gatekeepers to the scheme.

(3) There doesn't seem in Australia to be much distinction between the catholic orders and the catholic church per se in the documentation around the Royal Commission.
Or because they are confining it to sexual abuse, whereas we paid for physical abuse, neglect and the vague "psychological abuse". But interesting you think it's better to just confine redress to sexual abuse only. Certainly we would have saved many millions if we did this.
 

Lumpy Talbot

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 30, 2015
Messages
29,019
Twitter
No
Or because they are confining it to sexual abuse, whereas we paid for physical abuse, neglect and the vague "psychological abuse". But interesting you think it's better to just confine redress to sexual abuse only. Certainly we would have saved many millions if we did this.
Firstly, I never claimed the Aussie scheme in the report was for anything other than sexual abuse. The other clue was in the fanatical lead in sexual abuse in catholic institutions over other forms of abuse- 67% as opposed to 13% in Anglican institutions and 6% in Methodist run institutions.

If you have any complaints about comparisons between the Irish redress scheme and the Aussie redress scheme please do feel free to write in and complain to the Royal Commission-because they are the ones referring to the Irish scheme in their report, not me.

You have apparently also neglected to notice references to other state level redress schemes in the report. The report linked is specifically about sexual abuse. That's why it says so on the first title page. Which I assume is as far as you've got.
 

talkingshop

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 9, 2011
Messages
26,677
Firstly, I never claimed the Aussie scheme in the report was for anything other than sexual abuse. The other clue was in the fanatical lead in sexual abuse in catholic institutions over other forms of abuse- 67% as opposed to 13% in Anglican institutions and 6% in Methodist run institutions.

If you have any complaints about comparisons between the Irish redress scheme and the Aussie redress scheme please do feel free to write in and complain to the Royal Commission-because they are the ones referring to the Irish scheme in their report, not me.

You have apparently also neglected to notice references to other state level redress schemes in the report. The report linked is specifically about sexual abuse. That's why it says so on the first title page. Which I assume is as far as you've got.
Your OP says "Australian Abuse Redress Scheme 1, Irish Abuse Redress Scheme 0" - clearly making the point that the Australian Abuse Redress Scheme is better than the Irish one, despite the Irish one being far broader.

You know what you linked was just an estimate of possible costs, not an actual scheme that was adopted? So despite insisting the Australian Scheme is better, your OP doesn't actually contain details of what the adopted scheme was.
 

Lumpy Talbot

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 30, 2015
Messages
29,019
Twitter
No
Your OP says "Australian Abuse Redress Scheme 1, Irish Abuse Redress Scheme 0" - clearly making the point that the Australian Abuse Redress Scheme is better than the Irish one, despite the Irish one being far broader.

You know what you linked was just an estimate of possible costs, not an actual scheme that was adopted? So despite insisting the Australian Scheme is better, your OP doesn't actually contain details of what the adopted scheme was.
The primary advantage of the Australian approach is that the government there is not putting the Australian taxpayer on the hook for redress on behalf of the major churches mentioned in the report.

I can't reduce this significant difference any further than this for you.

You will be aware of the controversy over the screaming reluctance of church orders in Ireland to step up to the agreed plate on redress paid out by the taxpayer on their behalf.

Looks like the Aussies aren't in favour of taking the Irish government approach of putting the rest of the country's arse up for the cardinal.

That's a pretty obvious difference between Australia and Ireland. I'd call that '1-0' right there.
 

StarryPlough01

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 13, 2010
Messages
14,737
Caranua boss withdraws comments in which she said abuse survivors were 'damaged'


The committee heard yesterday that many survivors had felt “re-traumatised” following their experience dealing with Caranua. Connolly said applicants, most of whom are elderly, complained about the long delays in the decision-making process, as well as being treated with disrespect when told that their case had been refused.

Earlier this month, Clare Daly raised the issue of survivors appealing decisions waiting up to 12 months for a decision.

….

When the legislation came into effect governing Caranua and when guidelines were published in May 2014 there was no limit on what survivors could apply for.

However, in July 2016 a cap of €15,000 per applicant was introduced.

Higgins said that average pay-out to survivors is €13,000.


When asked how Caranua reached the figure of the €15,000 cap, she explained that the €110 million fund the organisation “is limited”.
 

StarryPlough01

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 13, 2010
Messages
14,737
Talkingshop's Link

Nocookies | The Australian

<www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/abuse-redress-child-victims-to-get-up-to-150000-compensation/news-story>


* The commonwealth will operate the scheme, which states, territories and institutions like churches and charities will be able to opt-in

* It will start early 2018 and last for at least 10 years

* Entities that opt-in will be responsible for paying out eligible claims, with payments limited to $150,000

* Payments will be exempted from personal debt recoveries and income tests relevant to government payments like welfare

* Survivors will also get access to counselling over the entire life of the scheme.

* So far South Australia has said no to opting in

* If Northern Territory and ACT do not opt-in they may be forced by new federal laws to do so. But the federal government has no power to force the states to do so.

Payments being exempt from income testing for Welfare is crucial.
 

talkingshop

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 9, 2011
Messages
26,677
The primary advantage of the Australian approach is that the government there is not putting the Australian taxpayer on the hook for redress on behalf of the major churches mentioned in the report.

I can't reduce this significant difference any further than this for you.

You will be aware of the controversy over the screaming reluctance of church orders in Ireland to step up to the agreed plate on redress paid out by the taxpayer on their behalf.

Looks like the Aussies aren't in favour of taking the Irish government approach of putting the rest of the country's arse up for the cardinal.

That's a pretty obvious difference between Australia and Ireland. I'd call that '1-0' right there.
I don't know about that. The maximum payment for the most severe sexual abuse under the Aussie scheme will be €150,000 dollars (€106,000 euro approx).

Residential Institutions Redress Board

To 31st August 2015 the Board completed the process in 16,631 cases. 12,039 offers have been made following settlement talks and 3,523 awards have been made following hearings. 17 applicants have rejected their awards. 1,069 applications were withdrawn, refused or resulted in no award.

Redress bands.

1 - loss of opportunity
2.- loss of opportunity and hardship or neglect
3 - loss of opportunity, hardship or neglect and psychological trauma
4 - loss of opportunity, hardship or neglect and severe psychological trauma resulting from physical or sexual abuse
5 - loss of opportunity, hardship or neglect, severe psychological trauma resulting from physical or sexual abuse and physical injury resulting from abuse.

To date the Redress Board has compensated 15,562 people of which 328 were compensated for physical and sexual abuse. So 2% of residents in industrial schools were physically or sexually abused. Given that the number sexually abused would have been much lower than those physically abused, say around 50, we can safely say that sexual abuse was NOT epidemic in boys institutions.

By way the RCC admitted that around 500 children had been physically or sexually abused in the industrial school system which suggests that the figure from the Redress Board is accurate.
If this is accurate, and lets say a full 500 had been sexually abused (even though this is an approximate number for those physically or sexually abused) and let's say each of them got the maximum €106,000 envisaged in Australia, and the RCC was liable for all of this, that would be about €53m. In fact the orders in Ireland have agreed to cough up at least €128m. Sound like the orders here have been quite generous, and will certainly be paying more than their Australian counterparts.
 

TruthInTheNews

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 10, 2016
Messages
1,522
Following on from the Royal Commission of Inquiry into abuses at both state and religious institutions which are covered in other threads I have in particular been watching for how Australia deals with its clerical orders in particular, given the Irish state's abysmal failure to extract even the agreed proportion of funding for redress from the orders in Ireland, many of whom are asset rich in the billions.

Reading through the Final Actuarial Report element of the Australian Royal Commission inquiry I am struck by two notable differences in the Australian attitude to redress schemes. The first is that the Government of Australia is regarded as the final or last resort for funding the schemes on behalf of religious orders and the actuarial report makes it plain that it does not regard itself as a fallback for the major churches featured such as the catholic church or anglican church.

Link: http://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/documents/final-actuarial-report-(1).pdf

The second item that caught my attention was that the Irish redress schemes are referenced- primarily in an examination of administration costs per claim the Irish scheme is estimated to have cost double the cost of the Australian proposed scheme per claim- mainly because of its involvement of a legalistic approach and the costs associated with Redress Inquiry Boards.

I recall something of a scandal when it transpired that the appointees to the Irish redress boards travelling around the country were charging up considerable expenses- something of a caravan of expensive hotel stays and subsistence claims.

Beyond that some of the tables in the actuarial report are of interest in the wider debate about incidences of abuse and in stats around estimates of reported abuses.

Table 3C on page 74 is an interesting one that compares incidence of abuse reports church-by-church which makes sobering reading.

'Proportions of Abuse within Faith-Based Institutions

Anglican 13%
Catholic 67%
Methodist 6%

and other denominations down under the 5% line.

The Irish redress schemes are mentioned here and there in the document. My own interest is in watching how the Aussie government handle the inevitable backsliding by the RCC organisations on contribution. They seem very firmly of the view that the RCC will stump up and the government there, unlike the Irish government, will not be making redress payments on its behalf thereby allowing it to welsh on any payments afterwards.

Noticeable also is that the Aussie paperwork seems to refer to catholic church institutions as a whole and does not seem to be caught up in whether catholic orders were separate legally from the RCC or not as happened in Ireland.
I think you are going to have bad day Lumpy because a quick Google search comes up this. The Churches can, er, opt in.

The Federal Government has announced a compensation scheme for victims of institutional child sexual abuse. The Commonwealth will lead the program, while states, territories and institutions, including churches, will be able to opt in. Victims will be able to access up to $150,000 each. The cost for just the Commonwealth over the 10-year period was estimated to be between $570 million and $770 million. Social Services Minister Christian Porter told reporters in Perth that the scheme would run for 10 years with an option to extend.


Institutional child abuse victims to get up to $150k each under new compensation scheme - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
Turnbull government announces massive compensation scheme for sex abuse victims
 

EUrJokingMeRight

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 28, 2009
Messages
11,664
Or because they are confining it to sexual abuse, whereas we paid for physical abuse, neglect and the vague "psychological abuse". But interesting you think it's better to just confine redress to sexual abuse only. Certainly we would have saved many millions if we did this.
You paid for ************************k all. I know many victims who have received jack sh1t from the RCC except abuse and empty platitudes.

Here's some advice. Dont try and defend the indefensible. You got that?
 

StarryPlough01

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 13, 2010
Messages
14,737
I don't know about that. The maximum payment for the most severe sexual abuse under the Aussie scheme will be €150,000 dollars (€106,000 euro approx).



If this is accurate, and lets say a full 500 had been sexually abused (even though this is an approximate number for those physically or sexually abused) and let's say each of them got the maximum €106,000 envisaged in Australia, and the RCC was liable for all of this, that would be about €53m. In fact the orders in Ireland have agreed to cough up at least €128m. Sound like the orders here have been quite generous, and will certainly be paying more than their Australian counterparts.
March 13th 2017
Pressure mounts on Church to 'pay up' on sexual abuse redress as Taoiseach says 'get on with it'

In 2002, an indemnity agreement was entered into by the Fianna Fáil Government and 18 religious orders. Under this agreement, the congregations agreed to hand over €128 million in cash and property. This was Increased to €353 million after the publication of the Ryan report.

In return, the State would indemnify these orders against legal actions from former residents.

However, according to a report by the Comptroller and Auditor General (C&AG) published by the Department of Education last week, Catholic religious congregations who ran residential institutions where children were abused have paid just 13% of the costs of a redress scheme.


The C&AG finds that only €85 million of that €226 million has been received by the State.
 

Sister Mercedes

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 19, 2011
Messages
20,461
Redress scheme = Another Legal Profession Gravy Train at Taxpayers Expense.

How about a redress scheme where those responsible are sent to jail and have their assets and pensions seized and sold off to compensate their victims. How come we never see any of those kinds of redress schemes.
 

talkingshop

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 9, 2011
Messages
26,677
You paid for ************************k all. I know many victims who have received jack sh1t from the RCC except abuse and empty platitudes.

Here's some advice. Dont try and defend the indefensible. You got that?
Not "defending" anything, and no, I don't "got that". :roll:
 

talkingshop

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 9, 2011
Messages
26,677
March 13th 2017
Pressure mounts on Church to 'pay up' on sexual abuse redress as Taoiseach says 'get on with it'

In 2002, an indemnity agreement was entered into by the Fianna Fáil Government and 18 religious orders. Under this agreement, the congregations agreed to hand over €128 million in cash and property. This was Increased to €353 million after the publication of the Ryan report.

In return, the State would indemnify these orders against legal actions from former residents.

However, according to a report by the Comptroller and Auditor General (C&AG) published by the Department of Education last week, Catholic religious congregations who ran residential institutions where children were abused have paid just 13% of the costs of a redress scheme.


The C&AG finds that only €85 million of that €226 million has been received by the State.
The agreement is for €128m and they should pay that.

I'm not so sure if they ever agreed to up it after the Ryan report. By the way the above is confused - it is alleging they should pay €226m or €353m...
 

StarryPlough01

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 13, 2010
Messages
14,737
The agreement is for €128m and they should pay that.

I'm not so sure if they ever agreed to up it after the Ryan report. By the way the above is confused - it is alleging they should pay €226m or €353m...
I noted that.

Abuse compensation deal a get-out-of-jail-free card for church

In 2009, following publication of the Ryan Commission report – which detailed the full horror of what happened to children at the institutions – the orders agreed to revise their contributions, pledging a further €350 million.

But the Christian Brothers, who operated many of the institutions, later withdrew its offer of an additional €127 million.

Instead, it said, it would transfer the lands to the Edmund Rice Schools Trust, its own entity for owning the former Christian Brothers schools.

The property transfers from the rest of the orders has been slow; the C and AG report noted acidly that it was “astonishing and inexcusable that six years after the publication of the Ryan report, only €85 million of the €226 million offer has been received by the State”.
 
Last edited:

Dame_Enda

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 14, 2011
Messages
54,505
Article 44 needs to be scrapped as it ties the hands of govt in forcing religious orders to surrender assets to the State.

As long as half or more of the public vote FF/FG this will not happen.
 

StarryPlough01

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 13, 2010
Messages
14,737
Abuse compensation deal a get-out-of-jail-free card for church

In 2009, following publication of the Ryan Commission report – which detailed the full horror of what happened to children at the institutions – the orders agreed to revise their contributions, pledging a further €350 million.

But the Christian Brothers, who operated many of the institutions, later withdrew its offer of an additional €127 million.

Instead, it said, it would transfer the lands to the Edmund Rice Schools Trust, its own entity for owning the former Christian Brothers schools.

The property transfers from the rest of the orders has been slow; the C and AG report noted acidly that it was “astonishing and inexcusable that six years after the publication of the Ryan report, only €85 million of the €226 million offer has been received by the State”.
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top