The National Redress Scheme confirmed in its August 2026 board update that it will close to new applications on 30 June 2027. The Scheme itself is winding up entirely on 30 June 2028.
For survivors of institutional child sexual abuse who haven’t yet decided how, or whether, to seek redress, this date is very important. However, that does not mean it’s not a reason to rush a decision that deserves care. Instead, make sure the decision gets made with full information, while there’s still time to weigh it properly.
Survivors in Australia generally have two distinct pathways available: the National Redress Scheme and a civil claim for damages against the institution responsible. They work very differently, and, critically, choosing one usually closes the door on the other. Understanding both, before an offer is on the table, is what makes the choice a genuine one rather than a rushed one.
What actually changes on 30 June 2027
New applications to the National Redress Scheme will no longer be accepted after 30 June 2027. The Scheme will keep processing applications already lodged by that date, with the Scheme itself closing on 30 June 2028 once that work is done.
The Scheme was established federally in response to the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, and it applies Australia-wide: this closure date is the same regardless of which state or territory a survivor lives in, or where the abuse occurred. It has no bearing on a survivor’s ability to bring a civil claim, which is a separate legal pathway governed by state law.
There’s no need to make a snap decision because of this date. There is a real need to understand, well before it arrives, what each option actually offers.
Pathway one: the National Redress Scheme
The National Redress Scheme offers a monetary payment capped at a maximum of $150,000, a direct personal response from the responsible institution, and access to counselling.
In practice, the great majority of payments sit well below that ceiling: the maximum is reserved for the most severe cases, and the amount offered in any individual matter depends on the specific circumstances assessed.
The Scheme’s proof threshold is deliberately lower than a court would require. As the Scheme’s own guidance sets out, an applicant needs to establish a “reasonable likelihood” that the abuse occurred. For civil matters, the civil standard of “balance of probabilities” applies.
That’s a meaningful difference for survivors whose abuse happened decades ago, where records are incomplete or witnesses have died.
What matters most for the decision covered in this article is this: accepting a Redress Scheme offer generally forecloses the right to sue. Applying doesn’t affect your other rights.
You can withdraw an application, or decline an offer, without giving anything up. However, signing the statutory release that comes with accepting a payment releases the responsible institution from civil liability for that abuse, and commits you not to bring or continue a civil claim against it over the same matter.
| National Redress Scheme | |
|---|---|
| Maximum payment | $150,000 |
| Proof standard | “Reasonable likelihood” the abuse occurred |
| Effect of accepting an offer | Generally releases the institution from civil liability, so you can’t then sue over the same abuse |
| Jurisdiction | Federal, applies Australia-wide |
| Applications close | 30 June 2027 |
Pathway two: a civil claim in NSW
A civil claim lets a survivor sue the responsible institution directly for damages, with no cap on the amount a court can award, but it requires proving the claim to the civil standard, on the balance of probabilities, and establishing the institution’s legal liability (for example, through vicarious liability or a breach of its duty of care).
For decades, the biggest practical obstacle to civil claims for childhood abuse in NSW was the limitation period: the legal deadline by which a claim had to be filed. The Limitation Amendment (Child Abuse) Act 2016 (NSW) removed that barrier. As the NSW Bar Association explains, the Act amended the Limitation Act 1969 (NSW) so that claims for damages arising from childhood sexual abuse, or related serious physical abuse, can now be brought at any time, and the change applies retrospectively, regardless of when the abuse occurred.
That reform is the reason a civil claim remains a genuine option for many NSW survivors today, no matter how long ago the abuse took place. It doesn’t make a claim easier to prove. It means time itself is no longer the thing standing in the way.
| Civil claim (NSW) | |
|---|---|
| Maximum payment | Uncapped, assessed on the individual circumstances |
| Proof standard | Balance of probabilities; institution’s legal liability must be established |
| Limitation period | Abolished for childhood abuse claims, so there is no time bar |
| Jurisdiction | NSW law (equivalent reforms exist in other states) |
| Applications close | No equivalent deadline, but see below |
The decision the closure date puts in front of you
Neither pathway is objectively “better”: they suit different circumstances. Redress is faster, carries a lower bar of proof, and doesn’t require reliving the abuse in a courtroom, but it caps what’s available and generally ends your right to sue. A civil claim can recognise the full extent of what was lost, but it demands more of the evidence and of the survivor pursuing it.
The closing date doesn’t change what’s right for any individual survivor. What it changes is the order events can happen in. Right now, a survivor can take the time to get advice on both pathways before deciding. After 30 June 2027, the Redress Scheme option disappears, and a survivor who hadn’t yet decided is left with only the civil pathway, whether or not that’s the one that actually suits their situation.
That’s the entire reason this is worth knowing about now rather than later. Not urgency for its own sake, but the ability to still make a real choice.
What This Means For Survivors
If you’re a survivor of institutional child sexual abuse and haven’t yet applied to the Redress Scheme or explored a civil claim, you still have time to get advice on both before deciding. Speaking with a solicitor who acts in both types of matter, before applying to either, is the clearest way to know which path, or whether a claim at all, genuinely fits your circumstances.
If you’ve already started a Redress application, that’s worth knowing too: lodging or progressing an application doesn’t itself close off your civil options. Only accepting an offer and signing the release does.
How O’Brien Criminal & Civil Solicitors Can Help
We act for survivors of institutional child abuse in civil claims against the schools, churches, government bodies, and other institutions responsible, and we can help you understand how a civil claim compares to a Redress Scheme application in your specific circumstances, at your own pace.
No Win, No Fee arrangements are available for select practice areas, including institutional abuse civil claims, and are subject to assessment. While you won’t have to pay our legal costs if your claim is unsuccessful, you may still be responsible for your opponent’s legal costs in some circumstances, and eligibility is assessed on a case-by-case basis. For the full details on how institutional abuse claims work in NSW, see our complete guide to institutional abuse claims.
You’re welcome to talk this through with us in your own time and on your own terms.
Request initial advice (no-obligation) via the form below or call us on (02) 9261 4281.
This content is for general information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. You should seek independent legal advice relevant to your specific circumstances.
Peter O'Brien is the Principal Solicitor of O'Brien Criminal & Civil Solicitors and Australia's leading expert in intentional torts litigation, with over 25 years of experience securing landmark victories in malicious prosecution and unlawful imprisonment cases. Author of Intentional Tort Litigation in Australia and recipient of the Law Council of Australia President's Medal, Peter has achieved record-breaking compensation for clients and is widely recognised for his unwavering commitment to access to justice.
