The Salvation Army would support compensation schemes for victims of child sexual abuse but “would resist having to contribute” to its funding unless it had some authority over staffing, decision making and the ability to question costs.

In its submission to the royal commission into institutional responses to child sexual abuse, the organisation said the establishment and operation of a financial redress scheme should be entirely funded by the Commonwealth, with funds contributed by institutions and offenders only going to abuse survivors.

It also suggested an institution should be given the option to “opt in or out” of the scheme, “as a matter of general principle.”

“Liability for such payments should not be apportioned between institutions,” it read. “Each institution should be responsible for their own wrongdoing. Then, such a scheme could operate on a debt-basis.”

In its submission, the Salvation Army also said it believed any final decision about the amount of compensation to be paid to a victim should be made by the institution, although it would support a national “best practice” protocol.

Financial reparation should be directed to “acknowledge harm and damage,” address the needs of the survivor and cover “reasonable” legal costs. It also warned that there must be equality of redress for victims of abuse in state-run institutions and non-government institutions.

Multiple public hearings have examined shocking cases of abuse of children and a failure by the Salvation Army to adequately respond to complaints. Allegations that abuse victims were punished for reporting were also heard.

In June the Salvation Army issued an apology to victims, saying it was “profoundly sorry” for the abuse suffered by at least 150 children under its care over decades. However the organisation maintained sexual abuse was not widespread within its ranks, submitting that the 157 claims of abuse in four of its homes was a “relatively small number” considering that more than 13,000 children had passed through the homes over 113 years. However counsel assisting the commission Simeon Beckett said it was likely many more people had not reported their abuse.

The royal commission has so far received a record 78 public submissions on the issue of redress, which its chief executive, Philip Reed, said reflected strong community interest in the issue.

“There is a common theme running through the submissions; that appropriate redress schemes may be effective in providing justice to victims of institutional child sexual abuse,” Reed said.

“A number of submissions put forward features for effective redress schemes, and some submissions recommended the establishment of a national redress scheme.”

The Salvation Army called for an external national body to be established to run the scheme to prevent perceptions that any payments were unfair or unequal.

“It considered that guidelines set independently of the institutions may give survivors a sense of relief that the figures ultimately determined in those guidelines have been deemed to be fair and just by the government authority that set them.”

It supported a redress scheme rather than civil litigation but said survivors should have the choice to pursue either.

However it added that claimants should not be allowed to “double dip” by seeking civil damages if they have already gone through the scheme. It also said there should be discussion around a “cap” on payment amounts.

The submission said that redress for individuals should be dealt with on a case by case basis and should allow abuse survivors to choose what sort of redress – financial or otherwise – they wished to seek.

“Fundamentally the Salvation Army considers that any redress scheme, whether internal or external should have as its primary objective the capacity to resolve claims in the best interest of the survivor.”

In another submission the Uniting Church gave support for a national and uniform externally operated scheme, to remove an institution’s responsibility for investigating itself. It said state-level redress schemes had been a “bitter experience” for survivors.

“Some of the church’s institutions have existing internal procedures to support people who have survived abuse, and many survivors have expressed satisfaction with the hearing and support they received.”

It said an external and transparent process with independent oversight would ensure its church was “fully held to account in a manner that gives the whole community confidence”.

It also raised the prospect of a discussion on compensation payment caps, however in contrast to the Salvation Army’s submission, the Uniting Church suggested any redress scheme should involve “universal” participation. It said defining the meaning of “mandatory” inclusion in a scheme would be one of the greatest challenges in operating it.

The Catholic Church, also the subject of numerous public hearings, has not yet provided a submission to the royal commission.