Defence Abuse Response Taskforce
Third Interim Report to
the Attorney-General and
Minister for Defence
september 2013
Defence Abuse Response Taskforce
Third Interim Report to
the Attorney-General and
Minister for Defence
september 2013
ISBN: 978-1-922032-20-1
© Commonwealth of Australia 2013
All material presented in this publication is provided under a Creative
Commons Attribution 3.0 Australia licence (www.creativecommons.
org/licenses).
For the avoidance of doubt, this means this licence only applies to
material as set out in this document.
The details of the relevant licence conditions are available on the
Creative Commons website as is the full legal code for the CC BY 3.0
AU licence (www.creativecommons.org/licenses).
Use of the Coat of Arms
The terms under which the Coat of Arms can be used are detailed on
the It’s an Honour website (www.itsanhonour.gov.au).
Contact us
Enquiries regarding the licence and any use of this document are
welcome at:
Commercial and Administrative Law Branch
Attorney-General’s Department
3–5 National Cct
BARTON ACT 2600
Call: 02 6141 6666
Email: copyright@ag.gov.au
DEFENCE ABUSE RESPONSE TASKFORCE
19 September 2013
Senator the Hon George Brandis QC
Attorney-General
PO Box 6100
Senate
Parliament House
CANBERRA ACT 2600
Senator the Hon David Johnston
Minister for Defence
PO Box 6100
Senate
Parliament House
CANBERRA ACT 2600
Dear Attorney-General and Minister
I am pleased to present the Third Interim Report by the Defence Abuse Response Taskforce,
in accordance with the Taskforce’s Terms of Reference issued in December 2012.
The Report provides an update on the important steps undertaken by the Taskforce during
its current Operational Phase. In particular, this Report outlines the onset of the delivery of
some of the Taskforce’s available outcomes as well as the implementation of key programs
such as the Restorative Engagement Program.
Yours sincerely
The Honourable Len Roberts-Smith RFD, QC
Chair
Defence Abuse Response Taskforce
i
Contents
Forewordv
Executive Summary
vi
Background2
Impact of the Caretaker Conventions
4
Impact of the general election
4
Complainant Support
5
Contact with complainants to date
6
Responding to feedback from complainants
6
Outcomes available through the Taskforce
8
Progress on the delivery of key outcomes
8
I. Defence Abuse Reparation Scheme
8
II. Restorative Engagement Program
11
III. Counselling
13
Referral for criminal investigation and possible prosecution
14
Referral for disciplinary action, administrative sanctions or other action
14
Behind the Scenes
16
Delivering results
16
Governance
16
Engagement with the Australian Defence Force Investigative Service
18
Engagement with Defence
18
Engagement with Police Services
19
Engagement with Restorative Engagement Academics and Practitioners
19
Engagement with other external agencies
19
Leadership Group
20
Taskforce Executive
20
Leadership Support Unit
21
Legal Support Team
21
Psychological Support Team
21
Operations Group
21
ADFA and HMAS Leeuwin Group
21
Outcomes Delivery Group
24
Systemic issues
25
Royal Commission
25
Taskforce Funding
25
Conclusion26
Contents
iii
APPENDICES
iv
Appendix A: Recommendations of the DLA Piper Review
27
Appendix B: Defence Abuse Response Taskforce Terms of Reference
29
Appendix C: Recommendations of the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade References Committee
30
Appendix D: Restorative Engagement Program Protocol
31
Appendix E: Overview of the Taskforce Organisational Chart
36
Appendix F: Restorative Engagement Program Framework
37
Appendix G: Administrative Access Scheme
48
Appendix H: Service Delivery Complaints Process
51
Appendix I: Reconsideration of Decisions
54
third Interim Report to the Attorney-General and Minister for Defence
|
september 2013
Foreword
Since providing the Second Interim Report in June 2013, there has been a change in Government. I would like to
take this opportunity to welcome the new Attorney-General, Senator the Hon George Brandis QC and Defence
Minister, Senator the Hon David Johnston together with the Shadow Attorney-General and Shadow Defence
Minister. I look forward to working with all parties in completing the important work of the Taskforce.
In the first two interim reports, I provided information about the Establishment Phase of the Taskforce and the
transition into the Operational Phase. The last Interim Report focussed heavily on providing an in-depth explanation
of the work of the Taskforce and in broad terms what complainants can expect as their individual matter proceeds
from initial registration through to an individually tailored outcome.
This Report concentrates on providing a general update on the progress being made by the Taskforce in relation
to the outcomes that are offered to complainants. There has been a great deal of work undertaken to progress the
making of Reparation Payments, the provision of a Restorative Engagement Program and the implementation of a
National Counselling Scheme for complainants.
In particular, the Defence Abuse Reparation Scheme has commenced operation.
As at 16 September 2013 the independent Reparation Payments Assessor had made over 70 decisions approving
Reparation Payments totalling in excess of $3 million (50 of those were for the maximum payment of $50,000).
The number of payments made is expected to rise and demonstrates the high incidence of serious abuses the
Taskforce is examining.
In the last three months the Restorative Engagement Group has written a Restorative Engagement Framework
document; the Taskforce and Defence have signed a Restorative Engagement Protocol; and initial training of
facilitators has been conducted.
I am also pleased to announce that the Request for Tender has been advertised in relation to the Defence Abuse
National Counselling Scheme, which will provide counselling to all complainants who require it. Prior to the roll out
of the Scheme, the Taskforce has made arrangements for, and is supporting people who need, urgent counselling.
As it is required to do, the Taskforce has been careful to consult with complainants in relation to possible outcomes,
recognising too that it is not for it to make decisions which properly belong to others, whether they be complainants,
Defence, police agencies or others.
The Taskforce’s staff are continuing to work tirelessly to provide outcomes as quickly as possible whilst ensuring
relevant programs have good governance structures so that complainants can be sure that the outcomes they seek
are provided to them in a safe, professional and effective manner.
I would like to acknowledge the continued dedication and professionalism of all Taskforce staff and of the
Leadership Group.
Finally I am pleased to place on the record my appreciation for the ongoing bipartisan support and commitment
expressed by both the new Government and Opposition.
The Honourable Len Roberts-Smith RFD, QC
Chair
Defence Abuse Response Taskforce
Fo r e w o rd
v
Executive Summary
The focus of the Taskforce over the last three months of its Operational Phase has been to continue supporting
complainants through its processes, as well as developing, procuring and implementing the necessary programs
and services to ensure the provision of appropriate outcomes to complainants Australia–wide.
During the period covered by this Report, the Taskforce has been:
• focusing on supporting complainants as their matters progress through various Taskforce processes to
resolution;
• assisting complainants to complete any forms and documentation needed by the Taskforce, acknowledging
that recounting abuse can itself be traumatic;
• assisting complainants to access counselling services;
• liaising with complainants, Defence and other agencies to obtain further information in relation to particular
complaints;
• assessing complaints to determine if they are within the scope of the Terms of Reference and are plausible;
• developing a protocol with Defence for implementation of the Restorative Engagement Program;
• working with Defence to finalise the Restorative Engagement Program Framework;
• assessing applications for Reparation Payments, making recommendations to the independent Reparations
Payment Assessor and effecting Reparation Payments approved by her;
• assessing and referring allegations of criminal offences to state and territory police for consideration and
possible investigation and prosecution;
• assessing allegations which could involve military discipline or administrative action for possible referral to
Defence for consideration and possible investigation or other action;
• collecting and analysing information for later reporting of systemic or cultural issues;
• redeveloping the Taskforce’s website (www.defenceabusetaskforce.gov.au), especially in response to feedback
from complainants, to improve its content and information architecture to ensure it is more user friendly and
intuitive with easily accessible and relevant information for complainants;
• progressing the Taskforce’s planning and general administrative and operational functions, including
forecasting the timeframe and budget for the Taskforce’s work and delivery of its outcomes;
• developing and procuring services and implementing the unique programs that underpin some of the key
outcomes available to complainants, including the Defence Abuse Reparation Scheme, the Defence Abuse
Restorative Engagement Program, and the delivery of contracted counselling services around Australia;
• strengthening the Taskforce’s governance protocols by developing a Procedures and Policies Manual to
support the present and future needs of the Taskforce, exercising prudence in policy-setting and decisionmaking, and taking into account the best interests of all stakeholders;
• developing a Business Continuity Plan to ensure that the vital work of the Taskforce continues in the event of any
unplanned disruption due to IT service issues, staff illness or unavailability, and lack of access to the Taskforce
offices; and
• analysing, collating data and developing reports through the Taskforce’s Case Management System to better
inform the Taskforce, the Government and Defence, about wider systemic issues.
vi
third Interim Report to the Attorney-General and Minister for Defence
|
september 2013
As demonstrated in this Report, the Taskforce continues to get through an enormous amount of work to
implement processes and procedures that are designed to ensure it deals fairly and appropriately with all of the
complaints and allegations it has received and that it does so transparently and taking into account the rights
and interests of alleged victims, alleged abusers and other parties.
To provide appropriate outcomes, the Taskforce has devised and developed unique national programs that
are well founded in principle and practice across diverse specialist areas. They include the Defence Abuse
Reparation Scheme, the Defence Abuse Restorative Engagement Program and the Defence Abuse National
Counselling Scheme.
During the period of this Report, the Taskforce has been able to begin implementing some of these outcomes
and the Taskforce now has a greater understanding of the effect abuse has had on people’s lives and respect for
those people who have told their story.
E x e cu t i v e Summar y
vii
Background
Following media reports of allegations of sexual misconduct involving ADFA cadets, the former Minister for
Defence announced that a number of inquiries would be commenced into:
• allegations of sexual and other abuse;
• the adequacy and appropriateness of Defence responses to allegations; and
• systemic cultural issues within Defence.
On 6 May 2011, the then Minister for Defence, the Hon Stephen Smith MP, announced that DLA Piper would
investigate the management of allegations of abuse within Defence.
As part of its response to the ADFA Skype incident, the Government asked the Australian Sex Discrimination
Commissioner, Elizabeth Broderick, to undertake a review of the treatment of women in the Australian Defence
Force (ADF).
On 22 August 2012, the Australian Human Rights Commission published its Review into the Treatment of
Women in the Australian Defence Force (Phase 2 Report), which recommended the establishment of a Sexual
Misconduct Prevention and Response Office (SeMPRO) to coordinate timely responses, victim support, education,
policy, practice and reporting for any misconduct of a sexual nature, including sexual harassment and sexual
abuse in the ADF.
On 10 October 2012, Senator Nick Xenophon moved a motion that the report of the review of allegations of
sexual and other abuse in Defence (Phase 1 Review Report) conducted by DLA Piper, and the response of the
Government to the report, be referred to the Senate’s Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade References Committee
for inquiry and report by 27 June 2013.
The establishment of the Taskforce was announced by the then Minister for Defence, on 26 November 2012.
The scope of the work of the Taskforce is guided by the Government Response to the DLA Piper
Recommendations (Appendix A) and the Defence Abuse Response Taskforce Appointment of Taskforce Chair
and Taskforce Terms of Reference (Appendix B).
On 14 March 2013, the former Minister for Defence tabled the Taskforce’s First Interim Report in Parliament.
During his Ministerial Statement to Parliament, the former Minister reiterated his expectations of the Taskforce
under the Terms of Reference and announced:
• the Government’s in-principle approval of the Defence Abuse Reparation Scheme;
• the 31 May 2013 cut-off date for the Taskforce to accept new allegations of abuse; and
• the extension of the period of operation of the Taskforce to 31 May 2014.
On the same day, the Chair and Executive Director of the Taskforce appeared before the Senate Committee.
Subsequently on 7 June 2013, the Deputy Chair and Executive Director of the Taskforce provided a private
briefing to the Senate Committee on the Taskforce’s activities.
On 16 May 2013, the then Minister for Defence and Attorney-General issued a joint media release publicising the
cut-off date and the Minister also announced the appointment of an independent Reparation Payments Assessor,
Ms Robyn Kruk AM, on 30 May 2013.
The cut-off date was widely advertised to raise awareness for potential complainants to register their complaints
of alleged abuse with the Taskforce.
2
third Interim Report to the Attorney-General and Minister for Defence
|
september 2013
On 20 June 2013, the former Minister for Defence tabled the Taskforce’s Second Interim Report in Parliament.
During his Ministerial Statement to Parliament on that day, the Minister noted that:
• individuals, including victims in the ‘ADFA 24’ cases, who made submissions to the DLA Piper Review but have
not yet given consent for their complaints to be assessed by the Taskforce, will be given every opportunity
to provide such consent subsequently. (The expression ‘ADFA 24’ refers to 24 allegations of serious sexual
assault alleged to have occurred at ADFA in the mid-1990s);
• the making of a Reparation Payment to a person under the Reparation Payment Scheme will not to affect the
statutory, common law or other legal rights of the person;
• in the Taskforce’s consideration of alleged events at ADFA and HMAS Leeuwin, several issues had become
apparent including that:
–– the allegations of serious abuse at HMAS Leeuwin and ADFA are more widespread and persistent than
was reported in the 1971 Rapke Report and in the 1998 Grey Review respectively;
–– the particular issues which arose at HMAS Leeuwin and ADFA can also be seen at other ADF recruit
schools and training institutions; and
• the Government and the Defence leadership are absolutely committed to pursuing the reforms necessary to
ensure zero tolerance of inappropriate conduct.
On 27 June 2013, the Senate Committee released its final report, which included 10 recommendations
(Appendix C). The Committee’s full report can be accessed at www.aph.gov.au.
On 23 July 2013, the then Minister for Defence and the Chief of the Defence Force (CDF) announced the launch
of the SeMPRO, which will allow for confidential disclosure and restricted reporting of sexual misconduct or
inappropriate sexual behaviour by Defence personnel outside the chain of command, as well as the provision of
counselling and victim support.
The Chair of the Taskforce finalised the conceptual policy framework for the Restorative Engagement Program
on 23 July 2013. The framework articulates the background, rationale, principles and processes that have
informed the development of the program.
On 3 August 2013, the Taskforce achieved another significant milestone with the signing of the Restorative
Engagement Program Protocol (Protocol) (Appendix D) between the CDF, the Secretary of the Department of
Defence (the Secretary of Defence), and the Chair of the Taskforce.
The signing of this Protocol demonstrates a positive commitment from Defence and the Taskforce to giving
complainants the opportunity to have their accounts of abuse heard, responded to and acknowledged. Under
the Protocol, senior Defence Force members and senior Defence public servants will hear personal accounts of
abuse from people who have made complaints to the Taskforce.
In order for the Taskforce to complete the work set out for it by Government within the agreed timeframes and
to ensure complainants receive outcomes that are available to them in a timely manner, it is necessary for
complainants to provide all relevant documentation and information to the Taskforce by 30 November 2013,
so that all necessary Taskforce action on them can be completed by 31 May 2014. The Taskforce will ensure
this deadline is well advertised to complainants in good time for them to give the required documentation and
information to the Taskforce by that date.
Further information surrounding the work and scope of the Taskforce has been outlined in the previous
First and Second Interim Reports that are available for download on the Taskforce’s website at
www.defenceabusetaskforce.gov.au.
An overview of the Taskforce’s Organisational Chart is set out in (Appendix E).
B ac k gr o u n d
3
Impact of the Caretaker Conventions
In accordance with the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet’s Guidance on Caretaker Conventions 2013
the caretaker period began at the time the House of Representatives was dissolved (Monday, 5 August 2013 at,
5.30pm) and continues until the result of the election is clear and, if there is a change of government, the new
government is appointed.
During a caretaker period, the business of government continues and ordinary matters of administration still
need to be addressed. However, successive governments have followed a series of practices, which aim to ensure
that their actions do not bind an incoming government and limit its freedom of action. In relation to procurement,
the caretaker conventions are that the government avoids entering major contracts or undertakings.
As any delays in the procurement activities of the Taskforce were likely to have a significant impact on the ability
of the Taskforce to achieve its expected outcomes, the Taskforce Chair met and briefed both the former Minister
for Defence Stephen Smith and the then Shadow Minister for Defence Senator David Johnston in July 2013. The
Chair informed them of the need for continuing procurement activities of the Taskforce over the caretaker period
for the delivery of counselling, reparation and restorative engagement services for complainants and sought
their bipartisan support for these activities over this period. Each gave their ongoing support for the procurement
activities of the Taskforce during the caretaker period.
Impact of the general election
The Taskforce has experienced a slight delay in the commencement of the first cases referred to the Restorative
Engagement Program due to Defence leaders being involved in briefings to new Ministers and government
officers after the Federal Election on 7 September 2013.
The first case conferences in the Restorative Engagement Program will now commence in October. This small
delay has had a flow on effect to the expected implementation dates for the delivery of the program as a whole
on a national basis. Liaison between the Taskforce and Defence on administrative and other arrangements for
the implementation of the Restorative Engagement Program nonetheless continued.
4
third Interim Report to the Attorney-General and Minister for Defence
|
september 2013
Complainant Support
‘Your professional, yet caring approach and correspondence provided the exact level of assurance required to
progress through this process in a positive manner.’ Complainant A
Over the first nine months the Taskforce has been operating, it has already had a powerful effect on people’s
lives.
More than 2400 complaints have been made to the Taskforce about abuse suffered in Defence prior to
11 April 2011.
The complaints of abuse being dealt with by the Taskforce are not concerned with trivial behaviour. They are
concerned with serious wrongful conduct or activity, which has, in many instances, had major and lasting
consequences to the complainant’s health and well-being. The types of abuse that fall within the scope of the
Taskforce are allegations of sexual abuse, physical abuse, sexual harassment and workplace harassment and
bullying.
Many people who have experienced abuse do not see themselves as ‘victims’ and object to that term being used.
It is for this reason the Taskforce uses the term ‘complainant’ to refer to the people who have brought their
complaint of abuse to the Taskforce’s attention.
While many complainants are women who have suffered serious sexual abuse, many of the Taskforce’s
complainants are in their fifties or older and, almost 70% are male. They relate tragic stories of lives greatly
affected by the abuse and the further trauma they experienced as a result of failure by those in authority to
acknowledge or respond to it.
Many individuals never reported their abuse and have never spoken of it before, even to their partners or
families. Many have spoken about their experience of severe mental and emotional harm as a result of the
abuse, including alcoholism, drug addiction, social isolation and, mental illness.
The Taskforce’s Complainant Support Group is working on a one-on-one basis to support the complainants.
These staff members have wide experience in working with people subjected to violence and discrimination,
social disadvantage and complex trauma. Where necessary, the Taskforce makes arrangements for the
complainant to have access to counselling, even at this initial stage. That may be done where the complainant is
identified as being at risk and in immediate need of counselling support.
The Taskforce has also worked with Defence to ensure that complainants who have settled a claim with Defence
may disclose information to the Taskforce solely for the purpose of having their complaint assessed and, where
relevant, actioned by the Taskforce according to its Terms of Reference and published guidelines.
On 8 August 2013, the former Minister for Defence agreed that individuals who have settled a claim against
Defence involving allegations of sexual or other forms of abuse by Defence personnel may still come to the
Taskforce with their complaint notwithstanding:
• the settlement or its terms were confidential; or
• the complainant had signed a Deed of Release and Indemnity or entered into any other form of written
agreement which had the effect of precluding pursuit of any further claims in relation to the matters the
subject of the settlement.
The Minister agreed that any such settlement conditions were waived to the extent necessary to enable the
complainant to have their complaint dealt with by the Taskforce.
C o mplai n a n t Supp o rt
5
Contact with complainants to date
Thank you so much for keeping your word and keeping in contact. It means a lot to me.’ Complainant B
The Taskforce is working towards making contact with all complainants. Due to the large number of
complainants, and the careful approach taken in contacting them, this initial contact has taken some time.
The Complainant Support Group is made up of the Complainant Liaison Team and the Case Coordination Team.
It is the only group within the Taskforce to have direct contact with complainants and has been working closely
with them since the establishment of the Taskforce. The Complainant Support Group has made contact with
more than 1811 complainants, with a large number of these complainants having repeated contact with the
Taskforce. Contact with complainants can be by phone or email and includes:
• advice to complainants that they are registered with the Taskforce;
• a request to complete a Personal Account Form and assistance with completion;
• explanation of Taskforce processes and outcomes;
• advice to complainants that their complaints have been assessed as in scope and plausible;
• provision of information regarding relevant outcome options and assistance to access those outcomes;
• information regarding support and resources available within the Taskforce and externally; and
• updates on the progress of their complaints.
Once a complainant’s claims of abuse have been assessed by the Taskforce as within the scope of its Terms of
Reference and plausible, a Case Coordinator is allocated to the complainant. The Case Coordinator will then
ordinarily be the sole point of contact within the Taskforce for that complainant. The Case Coordinator provides
information, support and assistance with any Taskforce programs or outcomes in which the complainant takes part.
To date 241 complainants have been assigned a Case Coordinator.
For those complainants whose complaints do not fall within the Terms of Reference or, are assessed as not
plausible, the Complainant Support Group can assist them to find the appropriate agency or process to address
their complaint and to access existing supports within the community or Defence.
Responding to feedback from complainants
‘I would like to advise you that my Case Coordinator has handled my case with compassion and sensitivity.’
Complainant C
Many complainants have said that reporting the abuse they experienced has been difficult and distressing for them,
but they hope it will help to stop abuse happening to others and lead to a change in the culture within Defence.
Many complainants are hopeful that the Taskforce processes will help them to move forward and to take steps
towards recovery. For a large number of complainants, it is the first time they have told anyone of the abuse
they experienced.
Complainants have taken the time to write to the Taskforce and express their appreciation of the kindness, care
and support they have been shown by the Taskforce and many are pleased to hear that they will be allocated a
single Case Coordinator to support them through the processes.
6
third Interim Report to the Attorney-General and Minister for Defence
|
september 2013
Some complainants are concerned at the time it might be taking for their complaint to be assessed. The
Complainant Support Group continues to provide support to these complainants at this time, and the Taskforce is
continuing to examine how assessments can be completed, more quickly.
Website update
The Complainant Support Group has been working in close consultation with the Taskforce’s Media and
Communications Unit to redevelop the Taskforce’s website (www.defenceabusetaskforce.gov.au). This
redevelopment is partly informed by feedback from complainants in relation to their experience using the current
website. The aim of the website redevelopment is to improve its ease of use and the relevance and accessibility of
the information provided for complainants.
The website provides an overview of the role of the Taskforce, its Terms of Reference, detailed information about
the specific Taskforce outcomes for complainants, a comprehensive list of frequently asked questions and the
support services that are available to complainants.
Modification to the Personal Account Form
Many people who have been traumatised by abuse find it difficult to complete the form in which they give their
personal account of the abuse. The Taskforce recognises that recounting the abuse can itself be traumatic and
distressing to complainants, and so an important aspect of the work of the Complainant Support Group is to
carefully and sensitively assist complainants to work through any forms or documentation needed. The Personal
Account Form has also recently been changed in response to complainant feedback to provide clarity and assist
in its completion.
Additional Hotline resources
As part of its response to the DLA Piper Review of allegations of sexual and other abuse in Defence, the
Australian Government launched a free call information Hotline (1800 424 991) to operate immediately following
the announcement of the establishment of the Taskforce. The Hotline is administered by contracted DLA Piper
staff who receive and log telephone calls and emails for referral to the Taskforce’s Complainant Support Group.
As the 31 May 2013 cut-off date for receipt of new allegations has passed, the nature of information required by
complainants has changed. To reflect this change and assist the Taskforce contact as many complainants as
possible in a timely manner, the Taskforce has restructured the tasks required of DLA Piper.
The DLA Piper Hotline staff will now assist the Taskforce in contacting complainants, answering enquiries about
Taskforce processes and outcomes, assisting people to complete the Personal Account Form and providing
updates to complainants.
The Taskforce has carried out training for the DLA Piper Hotline support staff to meet these new requirements
and ensure that complainants receive the best possible support when they contact the Hotline.
c o mplai n a n t s upp o rt
7
Outcomes available through the Taskforce
‘I really thought it would be a pain in the arse. I did it because I was angry. It has been very humbling and
reassuring that people who don’t know me care so much.’ Complainant D
Unlike a Royal Commission or some other form of administrative inquiry, the Taskforce’s primary focus is the
assessment and referral for resolution of individual allegations and complaints of abuse in Defence, although
systemic and cultural issues will be examined and referred to the Minister or the CDF for appropriate action, and
reported upon in due course.
The Taskforce’s Assessment Group provides relevant information to other areas of the Taskforce to assist
them to identify and implement options available to and chosen by the complainant as quickly and efficiently
as possible. The assessors determine whether an allegation or complaint is within the scope of the Terms
of Reference and plausible. To date, over 600 complaints have been assessed by the Taskforce. Information
surrounding the Assessment Group’s considerations when determining scope and plausibility is outlined in the
Taskforce’s Second Interim Report.
The Taskforce will only work towards those outcomes which the complainant indicates he or she wants.
However, in the case of referrals to the CDF for proposed military discipline, administrative sanction or other
administrative action, the decision whether to refer a matter rests with the Taskforce Chair, although the wishes
of the complainant will be considered. This exception to the general rule is primarily to allow for appropriate
action to be taken where the Taskforce has identified an actual or potential risk to Defence personnel from an
alleged abuser who is still serving.
Progress on the delivery of key outcomes
To provide these outcomes to complainants the Taskforce has developed three unique programs. These are the
Defence Abuse Restorative Engagement Program, the Defence Abuse Reparation Scheme, and the delivery of
contracted counselling services around Australia under the Taskforce’s National Counselling Scheme.
Implementing these programs is a complex task that requires external consultation with experts in the relevant
areas, as well as an involved procurement process to ensure that the Taskforce obtains the appropriate services
to implement these outcomes to complainants Australia–wide.
To ensure the effectiveness and efficiency of the delivery of key outcomes, the Taskforce has developed individual
project plans.
I. Defence Abuse Reparation Scheme
When the Taskforce’s Assessment Group has determined that a case is within the Terms of Reference and, the
complainant has expressed a wish to apply for a Reparation Payment, the matter is referred to the Taskforce’s
Reparations Group.
The Reparations Group is responsible for the administration of the Defence Abuse Reparation Scheme (the
Scheme), which was approved by the Prime Minister on 10 April 2013. As a result of representations made by
the Taskforce to Government, a number of important exceptions apply to Reparation Payments made under the
Scheme.
8
third Interim Report to the Attorney-General and Minister for Defence
|
september 2013
A Reparation Payment is an ‘exempt lump sum’ for the purposes of income testing under the Social Security Act
1991 and the Veterans’ Entitlement Act 1986. This means that a Reparation Payment is not counted as income
for the purposes of working out a person’s entitlements to social security payments or Department of Veterans’
Affairs (DVA) income support payments.
A Reparation Payment will also not be counted as income for the purposes of working out a person’s entitlement
to payments under the ABSTUDY Scheme or Assistance for Isolated Children Scheme.
It is important to note that this does not mean that any on-going income generated by the Reparation Payment,
such as interest, will be exempt from the income test. Where a Reparation Payment is invested, or used to
purchase an asset, that investment or asset may be assessable under the social security and DVA assets test.
The Government is considering whether a Reparation Payment will be counted as an asset under statutory
arrangements where assets are generally taken into account. The best course of action for complainants in this
regard is to check with the relevant Australian Government agency to confirm whether receipt of a Reparation
Payment will affect other entitlements.
The Taskforce will work with individual complainants whose entitlements are likely to be affected to find a
solution until the Government makes a decision on assets testing and any relevant legislation comes into effect.
On 28 June 2013, the Parliament passed legislation amending the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 to exempt
Defence Abuse Reparation Payments from income tax.
This means that:
• Reparation Payments will not be taxed;
• receipt of a Reparation Payment will not impact on entitlements to family assistance benefits, paid parental
leave or, the Commonwealth Seniors Health Card;
• Reparation Payments will not be counted as income for the purposes of parental means testing for certain
payments for young people, including Youth Allowance and ABSTUDY; and
• Reparation Payments will not be included in Adjusted Taxable Income for child support purposes.
The Reparation Payments Assessor
The Reparation Payments Assessor is an independent position established to make administrative decisions
associated with the making of a Reparation Payment under the Scheme.
The Assessor is responsible for deciding whether or not a person satisfies the criteria to qualify for a Reparation
Payment and, if so, the amount of the Reparation Payment in each case.
There are four categories of Reparation Payment which recognise increasingly serious abuse:
• Category 1 (Abuse): $5 000;
• Category 2 (Abuse): $15 000;
• Category 3 (Abuse): $30 000; and
• Category 4 (Abuse): $45 000.
In determining whether a person qualifies for a Category 1, 2, 3 or 4 (Abuse) payment, the Assessor takes into
account all plausible, in scope, abuse experienced by a person prior to 11 April 2011, including the following
types of factors:
• whether the person suffered one or more instance of plausible abuse;
• the nature and seriousness of the plausible abuse;
Ou tc o m e s availabl e t hr o ugh t h e Ta s k fo rc e
9
• the time period over which the plausible abuse occurred;
• whether there was one or more alleged abuser;
• the seniority or rank of the alleged abuser(s);
• whether the plausible abuse was witnessed or encouraged by others;
• the person’s circumstances when the plausible abuse occurred; and
• whether a person in a position of authority in Defence had any involvement in the plausible abuse.
A separate additional payment of $5,000 may be available where the Assessor is satisfied that a mismanagement
payment is applicable. For the purposes of the Scheme, the Assessor has discretion to make a mismanagement
payment in all cases in which she is plausibly satisfied that Defence:
• failed to properly manage a report of abuse actually made to it by a complainant, or by some other person in
respect of abuse of the complainant;
• failed to take reasonable management action to stop abuse when it was occurring in circumstances in which
Defence knew or ought to have known that abuse was occurring, and in which the particular complainant did
not report the abuse because of that failure;
• failed to take reasonable management action to stop abuse when it was occurring in circumstances in which
the abuse:
–– was perpetrated by a person in Defence in a position of seniority or higher rank to whom the person
abused would, or could, otherwise have reported the abuse;
–– was witnessed by a person in Defence in a position of seniority or higher rank but who took no steps to
stop it; and/or
• failed to take reasonable management action in response to abuse in circumstances in which the
complainant presented to a superior or other person in authority within Defence, with such physical or
psychological signs of injury as ought reasonably to have given rise to concern that the complainant was
being, or may have been, abused, but that person failed to make any enquiry about it.
10
third Interim Report to the Attorney-General and Minister for Defence
|
september 2013
As at 16 September 2013, the Assessor had made 72 decisions:
• 69 are final decisions
–– 50 of these decisions are maximum payments ($50 000)
–– 19 of these were preliminary decisions which are now final
• 3 are preliminary decisions where the Assessor is waiting for further information.
Forty-nine of these 69 final decisions have been paid*. A breakdown of these 69 final payment decisions
follows:
• 50 final decisions to pay $50,000 (comprising Category 4 (Abuse) payment and Category 5
(Mismanagement by Defence) payment) have been made
–– 34 of these 50 decisions have been paid*
• 1 final decision to pay $45,000 (comprising Category 4 (Abuse) payment) has been made
–– This decision has not yet been paid*
• 15 final decisions to pay $35,000 (comprising Category 3 (Abuse) payment and Category 5
(Mismanagement by Defence) payment) have been made
–– 13 of these 15 decisions have been paid*
• 3 final decision to pay $20,000 (comprising Category 2 (Abuse) payment and Category 5 (Mismanagement
by Defence) payment) has been made
–– 2 of these 3 decisions have been paid*
The total amount approved by the Assessor for Reparation Payments is $3.130 million
* The delay between a final payment decision and actual payment is usually due to the time difference between the
complainant being informed of the final outcome, and the complainant’s EFT form being received by the Taskforce.
The Taskforce is engaging a service provider to make Reparation Payments on behalf of the Taskforce to
complainants under the Scheme. The service provider will draw upon Commonwealth funds in order to make
Reparation Payments via electronic funds transfer to those complainants to whom the Assessor has approved a
Reparation Payment. The primary purpose of engaging a service provider is to ensure Reparation Payments are
made in an efficient, accurate and timely manner.
II. Restorative Engagement Program
The Restorative Engagement Program will give complainants the opportunity to have their accounts of abuse
heard, acknowledged and responded to by Defence. Matters referred to the Program will involve the complainant
and a senior Defence Force representative, or senior Defence public servant, working through a process with
a trained facilitator which culminates in a face-to-face private meeting (called a Restorative Engagement
Conference).
This process is unlike that of private sessions held by Royal Commissions, for example, the Royal Commission
into Institutional responses to Child Sexual Abuse. Those private sessions generally involve a meeting where
people tell their story to one or two Commissioners. They are an important way for Commissioners to bear
witness and to hear first-hand about the impact of child sexual abuse to better understand how it might be
prevented in the future. There is no direct outcome or response to the person from the institution where the
alleged abuse occurred. Each session requires one or two commissioners, commission staff who carry out
organisational tasks, and trained counsellors for support.
Ou tc o m e s availabl e t hr o ugh t h e Ta s k fo rc e
11
In the Taskforce’s Restorative Engagement Program, senior Defence Force members and senior Defence
public servants will hear personal accounts of abuse from people who have made complaints to the Taskforce,
but they also have the opportunity to respond to and acknowledge the accounts of abuse. At these Restorative
Engagement Conferences there will be an opportunity for complainants to receive, where appropriate, an
expression of regret or an apology, or some other appropriate outcome, from Defence. The Restorative
Engagement Conference involves a facilitator, the complainant (who may have a support person if they wish), and
a senior officer or representative from Defence in a facilitated private meeting.
Complainants taking part in the Restorative Engagement Program will already have had usually several months
support and assistance from their Taskforce Case Officer, and external counselling if necessary. As they progress
in the Program towards the conference, they will be fully briefed on it and their capacity to safely take part will be
constantly monitored.
The selected senior Defence officers and representatives will be briefed prior to the conference on the unique
features of the Program so they understand the process, their role in it, and the sensitivities of responding to
complainants who have experienced abuse.
On 3 August 2013, the Taskforce achieved a significant milestone with the signing of the Restorative Engagement
Program Protocol (Protocol) between the CDF, the Secretary of Defence and the Chair of the Taskforce.
The Protocol provides an agreed process for the implementation of the Program and ensures all parties involved
are guided by the same principles. The Protocol follows on from and reflects the Restorative Engagement
Program Framework which was finalised in July 2013 (Appendix F).
The Taskforce continues to work with Defence on the process within each Service to manage the selection,
preparation and involvement, on a case-by-case basis, of appropriate Defence personnel to be involved with
the Program.
Referrals to the Program may reasonably be expected to involve several hundred to a thousand or so
complainants. The Taskforce continues to work on project planning and logistics to deliver the program on a
national basis and ensure it is tailored to meet the needs of individual complainants.
In August 2013, the Taskforce organised a training workshop for a small group of highly experienced mediators
and restorative justice practitioners who will run the first Restorative Engagement Conferences.
As part of Phase1, the first group of facilitators have started being allocated cases. Additional cases will be
allocated to the Program after a larger cohort of facilitators has completed training and assessment later this year.
The workshop was carried out to:
• ensure all facilitators have a clear and agreed understanding of the Restorative Engagement Program’s
purpose and model; and
• deliver the technical knowledge and skills required for facilitators to conduct conferences between
complainants and Defence representatives.
The Program will be delivered in two phases.
Phase 1 will involve all the most senior Defence leaders. The CDF, the Secretary of Defence, the Vice-Chief of the
Defence Force (VCDF), the Chief of Navy, the Chief of Army and the Chief of the Air Force, have all agreed to meet
personally with complainants as part of the Restorative Engagement Program.
Some of the pre-conference briefings and some of the conferences themselves, will (with the consent of the
parties) be observed by an independent external expert who will present an evaluation report to the Taskforce.
12
third Interim Report to the Attorney-General and Minister for Defence
|
september 2013
Following Phase 1, the evaluation report and feedback from the participants will be considered and any
necessary changes made for the implementation of Phase 2.
Phase 2 will be the major part of the Program. It will involve potentially a thousand or so Restorative
Engagement Conferences across Army, Navy, Air Force and the Public Service component of Defence around
Australia. The Senior Defence leaders will be 3-star rank (Lieutenant General and equivalent) down to and
including Colonel and equivalent.
On 6 September 2013, at Defence Headquarters in Russell, the Chair and senior staff of the Taskforce met
with the CDF, the Secretary of Defence, VCDF, Chiefs of the Navy, Army and Air Force, Ms Carmel McGregor,
the Deputy Secretary, Defence People, Major General Gerard Fogarty and other Defence staff, to discuss the
implementation of Phase 1 of the Program.
As at 16 September 2013, as part of Phase 1 the Taskforce has allocated 5 matters to facilitators for Restorative
Engagement Conferences.
Project planning for the Restorative Engagement Program takes account of the Defence Christmas Stand Down
period and the ADF posting cycle. The flow of cases coming into the program is being tailored to work around the
restricted availability of suitable Defence representatives to participate in the program during these times.
III. Counselling
The Taskforce is currently in the process of procuring counselling services for the National Counselling
Scheme. A Request for Quotation issued in June 2013 did not identify a suitable national supplier for the
provision of counselling to Taskforce complainants. As a result, the Commonwealth, as represented by the
Attorney-General’s Department, is exercising its discretion to extend the request for quotation to state-based
organisations by means of an open tender process. The Request for Tender was released in the first week of
September 2013.
Prior to the implementation of the formal National Counselling Scheme, the Taskforce has developed interim
arrangements to refer complainants in need of immediate support to existing counselling services. The
interim arrangements include local government services, non-profit organisations, and individual counselling
professionals with expertise in working with people who have experienced trauma. This arrangement allows
for continuity of service provision for complainants who have an existing treating relationship with a suitable
counselling professional and who may have identified that it would be traumatising to retell their story to
another person.
In addition, the Taskforce has recently entered into an arrangement with a counselling provider, Davidson
Trahaire Corpsych Pty Limited, pending the outcome of the open tender process. This arrangement will meet the
immediate counselling needs of complainants eligible for, and in need of, these services. It allows for counselling
services to be provided to complainants throughout Australia with qualified counselling professionals who meet
the practice and registration standards determined by the relevant association for working with people who have
experienced abuse and trauma.
The Taskforce Case Coordination team assists complainants to access counselling services and maintains
contact during the provision of counselling to address any issues that may arise. This arrangement will continue
until the finalisation of the counselling services open tender process. Transition arrangements are in place to
ensure continuity of service provision for any complainants still receiving services through Davidson Trahaire
Corpsych Pty Limited.
Ou tc o m e s availabl e t hr o ugh t h e Ta s k fo rc e
13
Referral for criminal investigation and possible prosecution
The role of the Crime Group is to assess matters where a criminal offence is alleged to have been committed
and the complainant has stated he or she wants police to take action. The Taskforce determines if the matter
can be referred to a Commonwealth, State or Territory police agency for their consideration and possible
criminal investigation.
As at 16 September 2013, the Taskforce has referred 10 matters to State and Territory Police:
• 2 have been referred to Western Australia Police;
• 3 have been referred to Victoria Police;
• 2 have been referred to Queensland Police Service;
• 1 has been referred to ACT Policing;
• 1 has been referred to New South Wales Police Force; and
• 1 has been referred to Tasmania Police.
Eleven matters have been resolved in other ways. One complainant withdrew consent and one alleged abuser is
deceased. The Crime Group have a further 41 active matters under assessment.
Although referral to a police agency will be open to a complainant in cases which are appropriate for such a
referral, the Taskforce does not expect to make a large number of referrals. There are two reasons for that.
The first is that where the alleged abuse occurred a long time ago and was never reported, the prospect of
a successful criminal investigation will often not be good. The second, more important, reason is that the
majority of complainants, whose allegations could be referred to police, do not want that. In most instances,
the abuse (be it serious sexual assault or some other form of criminal abuse) has resulted in the complainant
being traumatised and suffering physical, emotional and psychological damage, sometimes for decades. They
are fearful of experiencing further trauma from involvement in the lengthy and difficult process of a police
prosecution with an uncertain outcome.
The Taskforce respects this and will not refer a complainant’s matter to police without the complainants consent.
Referral for disciplinary action, administrative sanctions or other action
In considering allegations of abuse and/or mismanagement by Defence, the Chair of the Taskforce has
the authority to refer matters involving still-serving members to the CDF or the Secretary of Defence with
a recommendation that Defence consider taking administrative sanction or disciplinary action against
those members. The Chair may also refer matters for consideration of other appropriate administrative or
management action. To support this function the Taskforce has created the position of Administrative Action
Officer (AAO). The AAO assesses allegations of abuse and mismanagement by Defence, and refers these to
the Chair for consideration of possible referral. To date, 73 matters have been referred to the AAO for further
assessment for administrative or disciplinary sanction or other action and are currently being processed.
Once a complaint is assessed as in scope and plausible, the Assessment Group assessor identifies any instances
that amount to Defence mismanagement or abuse, which are not criminal, but do amount to unacceptable
conduct. Under these circumstances, the assessor confirms if any of those involved are still-serving members,
and if so, refers the case to the AAO for further assessment. Examples of possible Defence mismanagement
may include a matter being reported but no action taken, or Defence not putting appropriate measures in place
to ensure those involved in an allegation were protected from ongoing harassment or victimisation. In regard to
unacceptable behaviour, examples include workplace bullying or harassment.
14
third Interim Report to the Attorney-General and Minister for Defence
|
september 2013
The AAO considers if additional information is required and prepares a brief for the Taskforce Chair to consider.
In preparing information for the Chair’s consideration, the AAO consults with the Taskforce’s Crime Group, the
Complainant Support Group, the Audit and Professional Standards Officer and, the Reparations Group, which
also considers mismanagement matters for Reparation Payments. The AAO refers to the relevant military
instructions and the relevant Taskforce Guidelines which provide guidance on unacceptable conduct and Defence
mismanagement. The administrative action referral process has been designed to ensure that the Taskforce
applies a consistent approach to matters which may involve military discipline and administrative sanctions or
other action and gives appropriate consideration to the complainant’s views and their welfare.
This outcome also can be constrained by the wishes of the complainant. As with possible criminal referrals,
many complainants feel unable to cope with the stress and possible retraumatisation from being involved in
disciplinary proceedings or Defence administrative action. That constraint of course will not apply in respect of
other administrative action which would not involve the complainant.
An investigation by the Australian Defence Force Administrative Service (ADFIS) under the Defence Force
Discipline Act 1982 is to all intents and purposes a criminal investigation. It would necessarily involve the
complainant (as the victim) being interviewed by ADFIS. Any subsequent prosecution before a Defence Force
Magistrate or Court Martial would (unless the accused pleaded guilty) require the complainant to give evidence
and be cross-examined. Again, the outcome of any such trial would be uncertain.
Administrative action for a sanction within Defence must, quite rightly, comply with the rules of procedural
fairness. Thus, an alleged abuser cannot have an administrative sanction taken against him or her, without being
given notice of all the information being relied upon for the proposed sanction, and an opportunity to respond
to it. It follows that where a complainant does not wish their details and information to be given to Defence, an
administrative sanction against an alleged abuser will not ordinarily be a possible option. That, however, would
be a matter for Defence, not the Taskforce.
The Taskforce is continuing to examine the possibility of other ways of dealing with such matters, and as
observed above, there may be other administrative or management action which could be taken not involving
the complainant.
Ou tc o m e s availabl e t hr o ugh t h e Ta s k fo rc e
15
Behind the Scenes
‘It is nice to know people care.’ Complainant E
Delivering results
Over the last three months, the Taskforce has focused on developing, procuring and implementing the
necessary programs and services to ensure the outcomes are provided to complainants and the continuing
support of complainants.
As at 16 September 2013 there are approximately 2400 complaints to be processed by the Taskforce.
Approximately 2200 complaints, including over 2800 cases, have already been recorded in the Taskforce’s Case
Management System. A ‘case’ is an individual incident of alleged abuse. A single complaint may allege a number
of individual incidents of abuse, sometimes many.
Approximately 1811 of these complainants have been contacted by the Complainant Support Group which is
answering their enquiries, assisting them to complete the Taskforce’s forms and provide supporting information,
and consulting complainants about the options open to them and the available resolutions they wish to pursue.
More than 981 complaints are at various points of the assessment process, and as at 16 September 2013, the
Assessor has made over 70 decisions approving in excess of $3 million in Reparation Payments.
Governance
The Taskforce has developed Protocols and Standard Operating Procedures and continues to refine workflows
for all Groups to assist them to conduct their work in a fair and effective manner.
The Taskforce has also been seeking to recruit more experienced staff (based on need) with relevant disciplines
and experience, for example victim support experts in the Complainant Support Group to increase the one-onone support for complainants.
The Taskforce has a complex task dealing with very serious and sensitive matters. Consequently, the Taskforce
has put in place processes to deal with any complaints about its service to complainants, to provide for internal
reconsideration of Taskforce decisions, and to deal with requests for information held by the Taskforce.
Administrative Access Scheme
In line with its Terms of Reference, the Taskforce receives information and documentation from a number of
different sources in relation to individual allegations of abuse in Defence prior to 11 April 2011.
Some complainants will contact the Taskforce seeking to clarify what information the Taskforce holds in
relation to their complaint. Consequently, the Taskforce has developed an administrative access scheme for
the release of information it holds, outside the formal process set out in the Freedom of Information Act 1982
(FOI Act). The purpose of this scheme is to deal more simply and efficiently with requests that could also be
made under the FOI Act.
Complaints about a decision not to provide the information requested should be made and will be handled in
accordance with the Taskforce Reconsideration of Decision Process. A complaint could also be made to the
Office of the Australian Information Commissioner.
16
third Interim Report to the Attorney-General and Minister for Defence
|
september 2013
The Taskforce’s Administrative Access Scheme process is available on the Taskforce’s website and is attached at
(Appendix G).
Audit and Professional Standards
The Taskforce has appointed an Audit and Professional Standards officer who is responsible for the review
and adjudication of matters referred to him by the Administrative Action Officer, the Crime Group or individual
assessors.
The adjudication assessment considers the quality of the military and/or civil police investigation and the manner
in which a complainant has been treated.
The additional role of the Audit and Professional Standards officer is to ensure that identified mismanagement
issues are addressed and referred to the Taskforce Chair for consideration.
Service Delivery Complaints Process
It is possible that, on occasion, complainants and members of the public will want to complain about the service
they have received from staff of the Taskforce. These service delivery complaints might range from rudeness to
claims of incompetence in the manner in which a matter was handled.
While a service delivery complaint can be made by any member of the public who has come into contact with
the Taskforce, it is likely that most of these complaints will be made by complainants whose allegations are
investigated by the Taskforce.
Complaints can fall into two categories. First, the complaint could be about the conduct of a member of the
Taskforce. Those complaints will be dealt with under this Service Delivery Complaints Process.
Other complaints may in fact be part of a wider complaint about a Taskforce process or the outcome of a
process, such as an unfavourable decision. Those broader or systemic complaints will be dealt with under the
Taskforce’s Review of Decisions Process.
The Taskforce’s Service Delivery Complaints process will shortly be available on the Taskforce’s website and is
attached at (Appendix H).
Reconsideration of Decisions’ Process
The Taskforce recognises that some complainants will wish to query decisions it makes in respect of their
complaint. Accordingly, the Taskforce has established an internal reconsideration process.
The purpose of this process is to allow the complainant the opportunity to provide the Taskforce Chair with new
or additional material which could lead the Chair to change an earlier decision.
An internal reconsideration process is good administrative practice that provides transparency to those affected
by Taskforce decisions. Internal reconsideration is also an opportunity for a senior member of the Taskforce,
such as the Taskforce Chair or a delegate of the Chair, to consider all the available material.
Internal reconsideration also provides a mechanism for the Taskforce to reconsider a decision when new
information has been received. It can further help identify any systemic problems in the Taskforce’s processes so
they can be corrected.
As an executive scheme, the main source of formal external scrutiny of the Taskforce is by the Parliament. The
Taskforce facilitates that scrutiny by regularly reporting to Parliament and attending Senate committee hearings
when requested.
B e hi n d t h e Sc e n e s
17
The Taskforce’s Reconsideration of Decisions process will shortly be available on the Taskforce’s website and is
attached at (Appendix I).
Decisions made by the independent Reparations Assessor are subject to a separate reconsideration process.
Records management
All Taskforce records are managed in accordance with Australian Government records management obligations,
including security, the FOI Act and the Privacy Act 1988 (the Privacy Act). Records identified to be retained as
National Archives will be transferred at the conclusion of the Taskforce in accordance with instructions from the
Minister for Defence.
Training for staff
During the period covered by this Report, the Taskforce has undertaken a number of training workshops for its
staff and stakeholders, including training:
• for contracted DLA Piper Hotline staff to ensure that complainants receive a consistent and supportive
response when they contact the Hotline;
• for a small group of facilitators for the Restorative Engagement Program to ensure they have the technical
knowledge and skills required to deliver the first conferences between complainants and Defence
representatives;
• from Taskforce psychologists to enhance the skills of the Complainant Support Group in working with
complainants;
• on freedom of information, privacy, fraud control, bullying and sexual harassment and other key areas of the
Taskforce’s operations; and
• for procurement officials to ensure staff awareness of compliance requirements under the Financial
Management and Accountability Act 1997 and the 2012 Commonwealth Procurement Rules.
Engagement with the Australian Defence Force Investigative Service
On 29 August 2013, ADFIS provided a further two boxes of information to the Taskforce which, must be scanned
and catalogued as a priority. This information is in addition to the 48 boxes and eight envelopes or plastic sleeves
of information that the Taskforce has already received from ADFIS. The Taskforce has invested significant time
and effort scanning and cataloguing over 18,000 Defence records so that they are easily accessible.
ADFIS is continuing to categorise and collate material relevant to the work of the Taskforce, through Plan
Millennium. Plan Millennium is a project initiated by ADFIS and Defence as a result of the DLA Piper Review,
which is forecast to be completed before May 2014. Once all documents have been catalogued and scanned,
ADFIS will conduct further searches of all Persons of Interest referenced in the Taskforce Requests for
Information to satisfy all requests made by the Taskforce.
The Taskforce anticipates receiving further information from ADFIS until all relevant documents have been
received in relation to the complaints before it.
Engagement with Defence
The Taskforce’s Defence Liaison Unit continues to engage with Defence’s Organisational Response Unit (ORU)
to ensure that information flows to the Taskforce in an efficient and timely manner. This engagement has
ensured that all Requests for Information are handled appropriately and managed with upmost sensitivity.
Where possible, the Taskforce retrieves records directly from the online National Archives Australia database
18
third Interim Report to the Attorney-General and Minister for Defence
|
september 2013
rather than requesting the information from Defence. The Taskforce continues to refine the Request for
Information process to improve the efficiency of the provision of information from Defence. As a result, the
average time taken by Defence to close a Request has gone from 31 days to 20 days.
From January 2013 to 16 September 2013, the Taskforce has placed 527 official Requests for Information with
the ORU in Defence seeking both corporate and individual information. Those 527 requests included 4,002
questions. Of the 527 official requests, Defence has provided complete responses to 368 requests.
The ORU and Defence Liaison Unit have been coordinating with Taskforce assessors to view hardcopy files
held by Defence to judge which documents are necessary for the Taskforce to complete an assessment. This
coordinated approach has assisted the work of the assessors and the Taskforce more generally.
The Taskforce has worked with the ORU to ensure that, where appropriate, information or assistance needed
by Defence in relation to the work of the Taskforce is provided through the ORU. This cooperation between the
Taskforce and Defence has been particularly important in the development of the Restorative Engagement
Framework and Protocol and, will continue to assist the Taskforce during the implementation phase of the
Restorative Engagement Program.
As outlined above, the Taskforce has a productive working relationship with the ORU, and processes have
continued to be refined to achieve better results for the Taskforce. The Taskforce, the ORU and Defence continue
to work through any process issues as they arise.
Engagement with Police Services
The Taskforce and eight out of nine police jurisdictions have agreed to a National Protocol for the Dissemination
of Information to Commonwealth, State and Territory Police. The protocol ensures an effective and sustainable
transition of referrals for matters that may require criminal investigation.
The protocol has been in operation for six months and is due to be reviewed shortly.
The Taskforce has referred 10 matters to State and Territory Police under the National Protocol.
Engagement with Restorative Engagement Academics and Practitioners
The Taskforce is in the process of appointing facilitators and procuring the required services to deliver the
Restorative Engagement Program on a national basis.
The Program was developed by Taskforce members with extensive practical experience in restorative justice,
criminal justice counselling, victim liaison and support and human rights mediation.
By May 2013 the Draft Policy Framework and Implementation Model had been developed to a sufficient level of
detail to be the subject of a full-day critical evaluation and discussion by an external Reference Group and other
advisers. All of the participants brought with them specialised knowledge of relevant subject areas including
international experience in restorative justice, mediation and arbitration.
Subsequently the Restorative Engagement Program as a whole has been informed by consultation with Defence
and a range of academics and specialists in the fields of mediation, conciliation and restorative practice.
Engagement with other external agencies
The Taskforce is liaising with a number of external agencies in relation to a range of matters relating to the work
of the Taskforce. Those agencies include the Defence Ombudsman, DVA, the Department of the Prime Minister
and Cabinet, the Department of Finance and Deregulation and others. The matters involved include the effect
that Taskforce outcomes may have on a complainant’s existing governmental or other entitlements.
B e hi n d t h e Sc e n e s
19
The Taskforce has developed an information sharing protocol with the Australian Human Rights Commission
Review into the Treatment of Women in the ADF (Phases 1 and 2).
The Taskforce is also working with DVA and the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual
Abuse to develop information sharing protocols.
Where the Taskforce is working with external agencies and is asked or required to provide information in relation
to complainants, the primary premise is that information will not be shared unless consent has been provided by
the complainant or, otherwise, will be provided in accordance with the Privacy Act.
The ongoing discussions with DVA in this regard however, have centred on the Taskforce providing as much
information as possible to the Department to best inform its considerations of Veterans’ applications for
pensions or other benefits. In discussions with the Taskforce Chair, the Secretary of the Department of Veterans’
Affairs reiterated the Department’s earlier intent that, wherever appropriate, it would take account of Taskforce
information which supports a veteran’s application.
Leadership Group
The executive authority of the Taskforce is vested in and exercised by the Taskforce Chair, the Honourable Len
Roberts-Smith RFD, QC. The Chair is responsible to the Parliament through the Attorney-General and Minister
for Defence.
The members of the Leadership Group include the Deputy Chair, Mr Robert Cornall AO, former Secretary of
the Commonwealth Attorney-General’s Department; Ms Susan Halliday, former federal Sex Discrimination
Commissioner, and Australian Federal Police Assistant Commissioner Rudi Lammers APM as an ex-officio
member.
The members of the Leadership Group advise and assist the Chair in the overall guidance, policy and direction of
the operation of the Taskforce, particularly in the areas of their specific qualifications or expertise.
On 1 July 2013, Assistant Commissioner Rudi Lammers was appointed as Chief Police Officer for the ACT. The
Taskforce is pleased to confirm that Chief Police Officer Lammers will continue his responsibilities with the
Taskforce.
From 26 November 2012 to 5 September 2013, the Leadership Group has met on 10 occasions. The individual
members continue to make significant personal contributions to various aspects of the Taskforce’s work and
responsibilities by working closely with individual groups and teams within the Taskforce and guiding the
development of critical organisational programs and processes.
Taskforce Executive
The Executive is responsible for managing the overall operational capacity of the Taskforce. It reports to the
Chair. The Executive is also responsible for ensuring that:
• the Taskforce is well placed to deliver the key operational goals set out in the Terms of Reference; and
• Taskforce staff deal with complainants professionally and their complaints and allegations are dealt with in a
fair, consistent and timely manner.
The Executive is currently establishing Information Sharing Protocols with DVA, and the Royal Commission
into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. The Taskforce has finalised an information sharing protocol
with the Australian Human Rights Commission. These protocols will allow for the sharing of relevant data and
information to assist both entities with their respective work. It is important to note that all the protocols will
require the consent of the complainants before information about them is given to any other agency.
20
third Interim Report to the Attorney-General and Minister for Defence
|
september 2013
Leadership Support Unit
The Leadership Support Unit and the Corporate Communications Unit have combined to provide strategic policy
and communications advice and support directly to the Chair and the Leadership Group.
The Unit is the first point of contact for all media enquiries and media liaison that relate to the Taskforce. Since
the last Interim Report, there has been ongoing media interest in relation to the Taskforce’s work, including
the referral of matters to police agencies, Reparation Payments made to complainants and the Restorative
Engagement Program.
In the last three months the Unit has redeveloped the content and structure of the Taskforce website to make it
more accessible and user friendly. The website (www.defenceabusetaskforce.gov.au) provides complainants with
information about how they can communicate with the Taskforce, what to expect as their complaint progresses
towards their individually tailored outcomes and generic information about the work of the Taskforce. There
is also a section for the media which, addresses frequently asked questions and provides a weekly update of
statistics that are of interest.
Legal Support Team
The Legal Support Team continues to provide legal advice to the Leadership Group and other members of the
Taskforce. This advice is given either by the Team or, where necessary, by external lawyers such as the Australian
Government Solicitor.
Psychological Support Team
As well as the professional advice and assistance provided to the Complainant Support Group mentioned earlier
in this Report, the Taskforce psychologists provide group psychological education/training sessions to Taskforce
staff on self-care and ways to counter vicarious trauma. Refresher training is currently underway.
They also schedule individual well-being screening interviews with all staff and provide additional psychological
support sessions as requested. From these interviews, they identify for staff when a referral to the Employee
Assistance Program or external provider for more in-depth assistance may be helpful. To date, many of the staff
have been scheduled for their third well-being interview.
Operations Group
The Operations Group has been focused on implementing and enhancing the Information Technology
infrastructure required to support the Taskforce and streamlining the process and systems supporting
information management, data entry, quality assurance and management reporting.
ADFA and HMAS Leeuwin Group
These two former separate Groups have now been amalgamated.
The primary tasks of the ADFA and HMAS Leeuwin Group are:
• to deal with the ‘ADFA 24’ cases specifically mentioned in the Terms of Reference and any other complaints of
alleged abuse at Australian Defence Force Academy which occurred prior to 11 April 2011; and
• to assess complaints of abuse referred to DLA Piper or the Taskforce that relate to incidents alleged to have
taken place at HMAS Leeuwin in the 1960s and 1970s.
In addition to the above, the ADFA and HMAS Leeuwin Group are analysing material available to the Taskforce in
relation to specific areas, such as the Royal Military College Duntroon.
B e hi n d t h e Sc e n e s
21
It remains the case, as noted in the Second Interim Report, that:
• the instances of serious abuse at HMAS Leeuwin and ADFA are more widespread and persistent than was
reported in the 1971 Rapke Report and in the 1998 Grey Review respectively;
• many of the particular issues which arose at HMAS Leeuwin and ADFA can also be seen at other ADF recruit
schools and training institutions;
• while powers to gather evidence might assist in examining these matters, the question whether a Royal
Commission is necessary or appropriate is still under active consideration; and
• in due course, the Taskforce will report on the systemic and other issues it has identified through
consideration of all material available to the Taskforce relating to abuse alleged to have occurred at both
ADFA and HMAS Leeuwin, and elsewhere in Defence.
ADFA 24
The Taskforce has received 70 complaints regarding allegations of abuse at ADFA, of which six are a part of what
is known as the ‘ADFA 24’ cases.
What is the ‘ADFA 24’?
The expression ‘ADFA 24’ refers to 24 allegations of serious sexual assault alleged to have occurred at ADFA
in the mid-1990s. Those which are not part of the ‘ADFA 24’ are being dealt with in the same way as other
complainants.
This cluster of cases was first identified by the Investigation Team that was charged with investigating complaints
made by individual cadets during the course of the 1998 Review into policies and practices to deal with sexual
harassment and sexual offence (the Grey Review). The Investigation Team report identified 24 allegations of
sexual assault (which the report describes as 15 cases of rape and nine cases of serious sexual assault) at ADFA
between 1994 and 1998.
DLA Piper, during their 2011 review, became aware of evidence provided by the leader of the Investigation Team
to the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade in June 1998, which referred to ’26 cases
of what we believe were rape … [of which] … only two have ever proceeded to complaints made to the civil courts
and have gone to trial’.
DLA Piper concluded that there was a high level of sexual assault at ADFA during this period in the mid-1990s
and that the perpetrators, if still in the ADF, will have risen to middle and senior management positions.
The Taskforce has reviewed all of the available documentation relating to the Grey Review and the Investigation
Team report. This review has revealed at least 24 allegations of serious sexual assault at ADFA, made by at
least 19 individuals, in this time period. However, given the passage of time, and the fact that some of the
documentation is de-identified, it is difficult to determine precisely which cases form part of the ‘ADFA 24’.
Has the Taskforce received any ‘ADFA 24’ complaints?
The Taskforce has received six complaints from people whose allegations form part of the ‘ADFA 24’.
The Taskforce has assessed these six complaints, and found the allegations of abuse to be plausible. It is
beginning to work with the complainants in relation to outcomes that the Taskforce can provide.
What has been done by Defence to investigate the ‘ADFA 24’ cases?
Following receipt of the Phase 1 Review Report, the CDF, General David Hurley AC DSC, directed ADFIS to conduct
a review of all material held by Defence in relation to the ‘ADFA 24’ cases. ADFIS provided a brief on these cases to
General Hurley in October 2012. In December 2012, General Hurley reported in the media that about 10 Defence Force
members suspected in the involvement of sexual assault of female cadets were still serving in Defence.
22
third Interim Report to the Attorney-General and Minister for Defence
|
september 2013
On 28 November 2012, the Chair and Executive Officer of the Taskforce attended a meeting at Defence
Headquarters with the Provost Marshal (ADF) and the then Head of the ORU. The Provost Marshal presented the
Briefing he had given to General Hurley on the ‘ADFA 24’ in October 2012. That included a schedule identifying a
range of alleged offences and alleged offenders, including 10 noted to be still serving. The briefing documents
were initially handed to the Chair, but were then retrieved during the meeting for logging and subsequent delivery
to the Taskforce. In the event, they were not provided until 17 January 2013.
At the meeting on 28 November 2012, the Provost Marshal informed the Chair that he had been directed not to
refer those matters to civilian police pending the outcome of the Taskforce consideration of them. Later that day,
having considered the matter, the Chair formally advised the Provost Marshal that Defence should take whatever
action it would ordinarily take about those matters (or any others), including referral to civilian police, without
waiting for the Taskforce to consider them.
What further can be done by the Taskforce about the ‘ADFA 24’ cases?
The Taskforce is limited in what it can do regarding the ‘ADFA 24’ cases where a complainant has not come
forward to the Taskforce. In these cases, the Taskforce is not able to provide outcomes for the subject of the
abuse (including a Reparation Payment or access to the Restorative Engagement or Counselling schemes). Most
importantly, in the absence of a complainant, the Taskforce is not able to refer any of these allegations to the
police.
While the Taskforce is limited in what outcomes it can achieve in these cases, it may still be open to Defence to
take administrative, disciplinary or other action in cases where an alleged abuser is still serving.
The Taskforce is in the process of reviewing all information available regarding these cases, including that going
to wider systemic or cultural issues.
Commencing in December 2012, ADFIS provided the Taskforce with a large number of documents from Defence
relating to the ‘ADFA 24’ allegations, including the brief it provided to General Hurley in October 2012 which the
CDF had stated showed that 10 of the alleged abusers were still serving.
When the Taskforce review of this documentation is complete, it will provide the Minister for Defence and the
CDF with a summary of observations about these allegations, and recommendations relating to cases where it
appears that it may be open to Defence to consider taking administrative, disciplinary or other action.
HMAS Leeuwin
The other primary task of the Group is to assess complaints referred to DLA Piper or the Taskforce that
relate to abuse alleged to have taken place at HMAS Leeuwin. The Group is also making an assessment of
the circumstances contributing to those incidents of alleged abuse. These complaints and the circumstances
surrounding them are being dealt with as a matter of priority.
The Taskforce has now received approximately 214 individual complaints alleging abuse at HMAS Leeuwin, and
the Group has completed assessment of close to 100 of these complaints. Each has been assessed as including
one or more plausible allegations of abuse of Junior Recruits at HMAS Leeuwin, all of whom were under 18
years of age at the time. The patterns of abuse revealed by these complaints, along with the research conducted
by the Group, confirm the observations made about HMAS Leeuwin in the First and Second Interim Reports.
The Taskforce continues to believe that bullying and violence of a widespread and serious nature occurred at
HMAS Leeuwin, particularly during the 1960s and 1970s.
Complaints assessed to date include plausible allegations of:
• bullying of Junior Recruits by more senior Junior Recruits, perpetrated as part of a well-established unofficial
hierarchy;
B e hi n d t h e Sc e n e s
23
• bullying of Junior Recruits by staff, through training or disciplinary practices that went beyond what was
reasonable for 15 or 16 year old naval recruits at the time;
• physical abuse where the alleged abusers were either Junior Recruits or HMAS Leeuwin staff;
• physical abuse in the form of an unreasonable failure to provide access to medical assistance; and
• sexual harassment or sexual abuse where the alleged abusers were either Junior Recruits, HMAS Leeuwin
staff or sponsors who took Junior Recruits home on weekend leave.
Complaints assessed to date also suggest that there was a failure by Defence to address the culture of
violence and bullying that existed at HMAS Leeuwin for many years of its operation. Complainants commonly
report that they believe that staff were aware of the abuse that was occurring. This view has been reinforced
by consideration of the 1971 Rapke Report and other material available on the public record regarding HMAS
Leeuwin. It appears that for significant periods of time in HMAS Leeuwin’s operation, staff did not take
appropriate steps to stop abuse from occurring, to respond to it appropriately or to prevent further abuse from
occurring.
Many complainants have reported that they did not make formal reports of the abuse they experienced because
of threats, or a perceived risk, of violence. Where abuse was reported, a small number of cases appear to have
been appropriately managed. However, in many cases reports of abuse appear to have been ignored or staff
appear to have dissuaded Junior Recruits from reporting.
Many complainants have informed the Taskforce of significant, detrimental and long-term impacts which they
attribute to their experiences at HMAS Leeuwin.
When each individual complaint is assessed, the Group refers the matter on to other appropriate areas of the
Taskforce to work towards resolution.
Outcomes Delivery Group
The Outcomes Delivery Group is responsible for supporting the delivery of the Reparation Payment, Restorative
Engagement and National Counselling Schemes. This responsibility includes:
• planning, consultation and workshopping of appropriate delivery models and strategy;
• developing, implementing and maintaining a framework that will assist staff to select the most appropriate
procurement process for necessary services;
• developing, implementing and maintaining a project management framework that will assist staff in the
effective and efficient delivery of outcomes;
• ensuring all funding and governance arrangements meet government requirements;
• ensuring compliance with the Commonwealth Procurement Rules and the Financial Management and
Accountability Act 1997;
• monitoring parliamentary and legislative reporting requirements;
• achieving effective and efficient results in supporting the Taskforce in the delivery of sound procurement and
project management decision making;
• supporting the Taskforce’s collaborative relationships with the Department of Defence and the AttorneyGeneral’s Department;
• supporting Taskforce milestones, including standardisation of Taskforce-consistent practices and adherence
to the Taskforce Terms of Reference; and
• providing assurance on the best outcome in achieving value for money.
24
third Interim Report to the Attorney-General and Minister for Defence
|
september 2013
Systemic issues
Under the Terms of Reference, the Taskforce is required to assess the findings of the Phase 1 Review Report and
the material gathered by that review. The Taskforce must also liaise with the Minister for Defence, the CDF and
the Secretary of Defence on any implications of its work for Defence’s ‘Pathway to Change’ and other responses
to the series of reviews into Defence culture and practices in particular the work done by the Sex Discrimination
Commissioner into the ADF and ADFA.
In relation to these requirements under the Terms of Reference, the Taskforce, once all information has been
gathered from complainants, will analyse the information in the case management system to ascertain whether
and what systemic issues are apparent.
The Taskforce will take into account the systemic issues identified by the Phase 1 Review Report and
provide advice based on information it has, as to whether the Taskforce agrees with the assessment and
recommendations of the Phase 1 Review Report.
Royal Commission
Under its Terms of Reference, the Taskforce must advise whether a Royal Commission is merited into any
categories of allegations raised by the Phase 1 Review Report or the Taskforce, in particular the ‘ADFA 24’ cases.
At this stage, the Taskforce is still actively considering this issue. However, until all information has been
provided and analysed, it would be premature to recommend whether a Royal Commission is necessary.
Once all information is analysed, the Taskforce will provide a considered response on this.
Taskforce Funding
The Taskforce has a budget of $121 million. This budget consists of two measures. The first is the Taskforce’s
operational budget of $37.147 million.
The second measure consists of a budget of $83.9 million for the Reparation Payments Scheme ($70 million),
Counselling ($7.2 million) and the Restorative Engagement Program ($6.7 million).
As at 31 August 2013, the Taskforce had expended:
• $10.2 million which is largely comprised of the salaries and other costs relating to its 100.93 (full-time
equivalent) employees;
• $1.330 million on Reparation Payments*; and
• $0.008 million on the Restorative Engagement Program.
The Attorney-General’s Department and the Department of Defence recently agreed on extended funding
arrangements for the complete delivery of Taskforce outcomes until the end of 2015. This will ensure that, once
the formal Taskforce has concluded in mid-2014, funding will continue to be allocated, at a reducing level, to
enable sufficient resources for delivery of all outcomes of the Taskforce, including complainant support services.
*Additional payments of approximately $1.25 million have been made since 31 August 2013.
B e hi n d t h e Sc e n e s
25
Conclusion
This Report highlights the progress being made by the Taskforce in relation to the outcomes that are offered to
complainants. To provide these diverse outcomes, the Taskforce has devised and developed unique programs
that are well founded in principle and practice. They include the Defence Abuse Reparation Scheme, the Defence
Abuse Restorative Engagement Program and the delivery of contracted counselling services around Australia.
There has been a great deal of work undertaken to progress these outcomes. As the delivery of outcomes has
commenced over the last three months, the Taskforce has begun to tangibly perceive the powerful effect it is
having on people’s lives. The Taskforce continues to work tirelessly to provide outcomes as quickly as possible,
whilst ensuring that the relevant programs have good governance structures so these outcomes are provided to
complainants in a professional and effective manner.
26
third Interim Report to the Attorney-General and Minister for Defence
|
september 2013
Appendix A: Recommendations of the
DLA Piper Review
Recommendations – DLA Piper Report
Government Response
Recommendation 1
We recommend that, for people whose detailed further information has not been
received or fully considered before Volume 2 is delivered:
Agreed.
(i) any further detailed information which the Review receives should be considered and
reported on in a supplementary report to the Minister and Secretary; and
(ii) the supplementary report should report on whether the preliminary assessment and
recommendations which went into Volume 2 need to be changed.
Recommendation 2
The Review recommends that Phase 2 undertake discussions with Defence as a
matter of urgency with a view to the clarification and, if necessary, amendment of DI(G)
PERS 35-4 to permit administrative action to be taken in respect of actions which may
constitute sex offences under applicable criminal law. The other DI(G)s that seem to be
relevant to these issues should also be examined.
Consideration should be given to having a DI(G) which directs the relevant Commanding
Officer to consider taking administrative action even though the same incident has also
been referred to civilian police and to review the status of the matter at regular intervals
to see whether administrative action should be taken.
Regard should be had to the desirability of Defence procedures following the APS model
for running administrative processes during or after criminal processes for the same facts.
The Taskforce will
examine additional
allegations concerning
incidents to 11 April
2011.
Agreed.
The Taskforce will
examine these
matters in the course
of its work.
A broader examination should be undertaken of the management of actions which may
be sexual offences under applicable criminal law and ‘unacceptable behaviour’ and
the relevant DI(G)s redrafted to provide simpler and appropriate advice and guidance
to management.
Recommendation 3
If a new complaint resolution scheme is established, it should not be limited to people
who have come to this Review but should be open to people who have not raised matters
with this Review.
Recommendation 4
If a new complaint resolution scheme is established, each allegation reported on within
Volume 2 should be reviewed to see if the allegation is suitable for the new scheme.
This is particularly important to allegations identified in Volume 2 for ‘no further action’.
That recommendation is based on the remedies currently available for the members
concerned. If new remedies are put in place, some of the ‘no further action’ matters may
be suitable for reparations under the new system.
Recommendation 5
There should be further investigation of matters identified during Phase 1 as raising
real concerns as to the occurrence of abuse and/or mismanagement by Defence of
reports of abuse.
Agreed.
The Taskforce will
examine additional
allegations.
Agreed.
The Taskforce will
directly handle
resolution of complaints
to DLA Piper.
Agreed.
The Taskforce will
gather additional
information as
appropriate and
report to the Minister
on implications for
‘Pathways to Change’.
A pp e n di x A : R e c o mm e n dat i o n s o f t h e D L A P ip e r R e v i e w
27
Recommendations – DLA Piper Report
Government Response
Recommendation 6
Further investigations to be made during Phase 2 should be conducted by an external
review body. A body similar to that which has conducted Phase 1 of the Review should be
established for this purpose.
Agreed.
Recommendation 7
Consideration should be given to establishing a capped compensation scheme for
the victims of abuse within Defence. During Phase 2 a detailed proposal for a capped
compensation scheme could be developed for the Government’s consideration at the
end of Phase 2.
Agreed.
Recommendation 8
Consideration should be given to establishing a framework for private facilitated
meetings between victims, perpetrators and witnesses of abuse within Defence.
During Phase 2 a detailed proposal for such a framework could be developed for the
Government’s consideration at the end of Phase 2.
Agreed.
Recommendation 9
Special counselling and health services in place for the duration of this Review should be
extended into Phase 2 of the Review whilst a plan for providing health services to victims
of abuse is prepared. Thereafter, the plan should be implemented such that victims of
abuse within Defence have access to counselling and health services.
Agreed.
The Taskforce is
oriented towards the
resolution of cases.
A capped compensation
scheme will be
administered by the
Taskforce.
Restorative justice
is one of the options
open to the Taskforce
to resolve individual
complaints.
The Taskforce will
be funded to provide
additional counselling
and will also liaise with
and provide referrals to
existing services.
Recommendation 10
A suite of options should be adopted to provide means for affording reparation to
persons affected by abuse in Defence comprising:
• public apology/acknowledgements;
• personal apology;
Agreed.
• capped compensation scheme;
The Government
response is based on a
similar suite of options.
• facilitated meeting between victim and perpetrator;
• health services and counselling.
A body or team should be tasked to develop detailed proposals for the suite of options,
so that they may be presented for a decision on implementation.
While the suite of options are being developed, there should be further external
investigation of matters recommended in Volume 2 for further external investigation.
There could be referral of matters recommended for internal/external referral. Volume 2
recommendations are limited to existing options. Accordingly, matters recommended
for ‘no further action’ in Volume 2 should be ‘held’, pending the development of the
proposals and then – where appropriate – considered for possible action under any new
processes adopted. There should be appropriate communication to complainants as to
what will happen during the transition stage and into Phase 2.
28
third Interim Report to the Attorney-General and Minister for Defence
The Taskforce will be
responsible for an
expanded role than that
recommended by DLA
Piper and is strongly
oriented towards the
resolution of cases.
|
september 2013
Appendix B: Defence Abuse Response
Taskforce Terms of Reference
We hereby appoint the Honourable Len Roberts-Smith RFD, QC to lead the Defence Abuse Response Taskforce to
operate in accordance with the following terms of reference as part of the Australian Government’s response to
DLA Piper’s Report of the Review of allegations of sexual and other forms of abuse in the Australian Defence Force.
The Taskforce is to:
(i)
assess the findings of the DLA Piper review and the material gathered by that review, and any additional material
available to the Taskforce concerning complaints of sexual and other forms of abuse by Defence personnel alleged
to have occurred prior to 11 April 2011, the date of the announcement of the DLA Piper Review;
(ii)
include in this assessment the 24 Australian Defence Force Academy (ADFA) cases noted by DLA Piper and the
cases of abuse identified by reports into physical violence and bullying at HMAS Leeuwin, and whether the alleged
victims, perpetrators and witnesses in relation to these cases remain in Defence;
(iii) determine, in close consultation with those who have made complaints, appropriate actions in response to
those complaints;
(iv) will also, as appropriate, gather additional information relevant to consideration of the handling of particular
allegations e.g. relevant records held by Defence;
(v)
take account of the rights and interests of alleged victims, accused persons and other parties;
(vi) liaise with the Minister for Defence, Chief of the Defence Force and the Secretary of the Department of Defence
on any implications of its work for Defence’s ’Pathway to Change’ and other responses to the series of reviews
into Defence culture and practices in particular the work done by the Sex Discrimination Commissioner into the
Australian Defence Force (ADF) and ADFA;
(vii) report to the Attorney-General and Minister for Defence every 3 months on its progress and issues arising,
including whether the funding it has been provided is adequate so as to enable the Attorney-General and
Minister for Defence to report to Parliament as appropriate;
(viii) report to the Attorney-General and Minister for Defence by October 2013 on whether, in what form, the Taskforce
should continue in effect beyond the initial 12 month period and the funding that would be required so as to enable
the Attorney-General and Minister for Defence to report to Parliament as appropriate, and
(ix) to advise whether a Royal Commission would be merited into any categories of allegation raised with the
DLA Piper review or the Taskforce, in particular the 24 ADFA cases.
The terms and conditions of the engagement by the Commonwealth of the Honourable Len Roberts-Smith RFD, QC
are to be governed by an agreement between the Honourable Len Roberts-Smith RFD, QC and Roger Wilkins AO,
Secretary of the Attorney-General’s Department.
The Hon Nicola Roxon MP
The Hon Stephen Smith MP
Attorney-General, Minister for Emergency Management
Minister for Defence
Dated:
Dated:
A pp e n di x A : R e c o mm e n dat i o n s o f t h e D L A P ip e r R e v i e w
29
Appendix C: Recommendations of the
Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade
References Committee
Recommendation 1 The committee recommends that Defence prominently display, and commemorate, the
apology by the Minister of Defence and the Chief of the Defence Force to victims of abuse in Defence.
Recommendation 2 The committee recommends that Defence formally respond to the systemic issues and
findings of the DLA Piper Review in its public reporting on the progress of the implementation of the Pathway to
Change Defence cultural reforms.
Recommendation 3 The committee recommends that Defence actively encourage senior officers to
participate in the Defence Abuse Response Taskforce’s restorative engagement program with victims of abuse.
Recommendation 4 The committee recommends that Defence provide a waiver of any confidentiality or nondisclosure agreement which could prevent a person from engaging with the Defence Abuse Response Taskforce.
Recommendation 5 The committee recommends that, following the conclusion of the Defence Abuse
Response Taskforce’s operation, the Minister for Defence facilitate the productive use of the Taskforce’s
depersonalised statistical database of information regarding reported incidents of abuse in Defence.
Recommendation 6 The committee recommends that the Australian Government commission an
independent review to determine whether any of the functions of the Defence Abuse Response Taskforce’s
should continue and how to ensure these functions can continue to be performed effectively. This independent
review will report its findings and make recommendations to the Minister for Defence, the Attorney-General and
the Minister for Veterans Affairs.
The committee recommends that, at the conclusion of this independent review, the Minister for Defence, the
Attorney-General and the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, should assess whether any of the functions of the
Defence Abuse Response Taskforce should continue in another form.
Recommendation 7 The committee recommends that Defence implement recommendation 19 of the
Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force’s review—that the appointment of case officers to support
complainants and respondents should be required in all cases.
Recommendation 8 The committee recommends that Defence assess whether additional support services
for victims of non-sexual forms of abuse should be included within the Pathway to Change cultural reforms.
Recommendation 9 The committee recommends that Defence engage in dialogue with associations which
represent the interests of victims of abuse in Defence.
Recommendation 10 The committee recommends that, at the completion of the implementation of the
Pathway to Change strategy, the Australian Government conduct an independent review of its outcomes and an
assessment of the need for further reform in Defence.
30
third Interim Report to the Attorney-General and Minister for Defence
|
september 2013
Appendix D: Restorative Engagement
Program Protocol
A pp e n di x D : R e s to rat i v e E n gag e m e n t P r o gram P r oto c o l
31
32
third Interim Report to the Attorney-General and Minister for Defence
|
september 2013
A pp e n di x D : R e s to rat i v e E n gag e m e n t P r o gram P r oto c o l
33
34
third Interim Report to the Attorney-General and Minister for Defence
|
september 2013
A pp e n di x E : O v e r v i e w o f t h e Ta s k fo rc e Orga n i s at i o n al C hart
35
Appendix E: Overview of the Taskforce
Organisational Chart
Assistant
Commissioner
Rudi Lammers
Member Consultant
Susan Halliday
Deputy Chair
Consultant
Robert Cornall AO
CHAIR
Hon. Len Roberts-Smith,
RFD, QC
Leadership
Support Unit
Reparations
Payment Assessor
Robyn Kruk
EXECUTIVE
Operations
Assessment
Group
Administration
Restorative
Engagement
Program Group
Strategic
Coordination
Reparations
Group
Defence Liaison &
Strategic Support
Complainant Support
Group
Legal Support
Team
Crime
Group
ADFA and HMAS
Leeuwin
Psychological
Support
Outcome Delivery
Group
Counselling & Case
Coordination Team
Complainant
Liaison
36
third Interim Report to the Attorney-General and Minister for Defence
|
september 2013
Appendix F: Restorative Engagement
Program Framework
Defence
Abuse
Response
Taskforce
July 23
2013
This document sets out the framework for the Restorative
Engagement Program for complainants who have made plausible
allegations of abuse to DLA Piper and the Defence Abuse Response
Taskforce.
Restorative
Engagement
Program
Framework
© Commonwealth of Australia 2013
A pp e n di x F: R e s to rat i v e E n gag e m e n t P r o gram F ram e w o r k
37
Executive Summary
The Restorative Engagement Program for the Defence Abuse Response Taskforce (Taskforce) has been
developed as part of the Government’s response to the DLA Piper Review into allegations of sexual and other abuse
in Defence which was announced on 26 November 2012.
The Australian Defence Force and Department of Defence have been consulted and cooperated in the
development of the components of the Framework that involve their participation.
The Restorative Engagement Program is an option that will be offered to complainants who have made plausible
allegations of physical, sexual and verbal abuse under the DLA Piper review who are found to be suitable
candidates for the program. Allegations of harm which have been determined by the Taskforce as plausible will
not be disputed by the Defence officer or representative at a restorative engagement conference. The types of
allegations that may be referred to the Restorative Engagement Program will range from bullying and verbal
abuse to physical abuse, including sexual assault. Allegations assessed to be plausible1, will not be disputed by
the parties of the Restorative Engagement Program.
The Restorative Engagement Program provides complainants with an opportunity to tell their personal account
of abuse and an opportunity for Defence to acknowledge and respond to individual cases.
Complainants who participate in the Restorative Engagement Program can also seek resolution through the
other outcomes offered by the Taskforce. Those other outcomes include financial reparation, counselling
and the referral of appropriate matters for criminal investigation and possible prosecution and to Defence for
consideration of military justice or administrative sanctions.
This Framework has been developed following the Government’s acceptance of the DLA Piper Review
recommendation regarding the provision of a restorative-based process for complainants. It describes the
model of restorative practice adapted by the Taskforce to meet the Government’s objectives and the particular
circumstances and key features of the complaints referred to or received by the Taskforce. The Framework is
underpinned by the best practice principles and values of restorative practice and mediation. These principles
and values include ‘to do no further harm’, confidentiality, and privacy.
Introduction
This Framework outlines the background, rationale, principles and processes that have informed the
development of the Restorative Engagement Program.
Background
Following media reports of allegations of sexual misconduct involving ADFA cadets in April 2011, the Minister for
Defence, the Hon Stephen Smith, announced that a number of inquiries would be commenced into;
• allegations of sexual and other abuse;
• the adequacy and appropriateness of Defence responses to allegations of abuse; and
• systemic cultural issues within Defence.
On 6 May 2011, the Minister for Defence announced that DLA Piper would conduct a review and investigate the
management of allegations of abuse within Defence. On 26 November 2012, the Minister for Defence announced
the establishment of the Defence Abuse Response Taskforce to implement the DLA Piper recommendations.
1
38
Allegations of harm are assessed for plausibility by the Taskforce.
third Interim Report to the Attorney-General and Minister for Defence
|
september 2013
The DLA Piper Review identified plausible allegations of abuse from 775 people which fell within the Review’s
Terms of Reference. Those allegations were made in respect of incidents which occurred in each decade from
the 1950’s. The earliest year of alleged abuse was 1951.
Government Response to the Review
The Government’s response to the DLA Piper Review seeks to ensure that those who have alleged abuse
in Defence receive a response that is appropriate to their individual circumstances and the nature of their
experiences.
The response included;
• an apology to all those current and former Australian Defence Force personnel and Defence Australian Public
Service employees who have suffered sexual or other forms of abuse in the course of their employment. The
apology was delivered in Parliament by the Minister for Defence on 26 November 2012;
• an apology on the same day by the Chief of Defence Force, General David Hurley AC DCS, acknowledging the
suffering of those current and former ADF personnel and Defence APS employees who experienced sexual
or other forms of abuse in the course of their employment and a commitment to assist the Government to
implement the responses to that abuse that the Government was putting in place; and
• the establishment of an independent Taskforce – the Taskforce – to assess the individual complaints and
any wider systemic issues to be headed by the Hon Len RobertsSmith QC RFD. The Taskforce’s Terms of
Reference are set out in Appendix A.
In addition to the Chair, the Taskforce includes a leadership group comprising the following members:
• Mr Robert Cornall AO, former Secretary of the Attorney-General’s Department;
• Ms Susan Halliday, former Federal Sex Discrimination Commissioner;
• Rudi Lammers APM, Australian Federal Police Assistant Commissioner (ex-officio).
The Taskforce is required to consider and respond to all complaints referred to it from the DLA Piper Review and
all new complaints of abuse received by the 31 May 2013 cut-off date.
The individual allegations, findings and issues raised by complainants are serious and concerning. They involve
complex and sensitive matters which have required careful and extensive consideration.
As a result, the Taskforce has developed a range of outcomes which are offered to complainants, when they
are appropriate to the individual’s circumstances, to assist in reaching some resolution to the abuse they have
suffered. Those outcomes are:
• participation in the Restorative Engagement Program (outlined below);
• referral to counselling;
• reparation, to a maximum of $50,000;
• referral of appropriate matters to police for consideration and possible investigation and prosecution; and
• referral of appropriate matters to Defence for consideration of the military justice system or administrative
sanctions.
A pp e n di x F: R e s to rat i v e E n gag e m e n t P r o gram F ram e w o r k
39
Restorative Engagement Program
Overview
The Restorative Engagement Program provides an opportunity for those who have made plausible allegations
of abuse within the Australian Defence Force to participate in a restorative process that allows their personal
account of abuse to be heard, responded to and acknowledged by Defence.
The Taskforce has established the Restorative Engagement Program as a means of addressing directly the
harm, and the implications caused by these instances of abuse on complainants.
The Restorative Engagement Program combines many of the core principles which inform the practice of
restorative justice in the criminal justice system and of mediation with specific reference to the consideration of
allegations of sexual abuse.
The steps for conducting the Restorative Engagement Program are set out in the Restorative Engagement
Program Practice Manual.
The key criteria for and requirements of the Restorative Engagement Program are that:
• any complaint being referred to the program contains plausible allegations of abuse (which may or may not
be criminal in nature);
• a senior Defence officer or representative will participate in each restorative engagement conference;
• participation of an alleged abuser will not be advisable unless the alleged abuser approaches the Taskforce
and he/she admits responsibility for the abuse and is assessed for the Restorative Engagement Program
prior to the Taskforce contacting the complainant;
• all restorative engagement conferences will be organised, facilitated and conducted by Restorative
Engagement Program facilitators; although face-to-face conferences will be the primary mode of the
restorative engagement, in some cases, the Restorative Engagement Program may be conducted by
telephone, videoconferencing, email or letter; and
• participation in the Restorative Engagement Program is not linked to or dependent on any other outcomes
offered to participants and, in particular, will not prevent, delay or effect criminal prosecution of or military
justice or administrative sanctions against the alleged abuser where those outcomes are warranted.
Developing a unique approach
In evaluating what appropriate responses may be established for complainants, the DLA Piper Review states that
“a significant number of the persons who contacted the Review indicated that their primary wish is for Defence to
acknowledge that abuse had occurred and to express regret for that action.”2
In this regard, the Review discusses a number of options, recommending the use of the core values of restorative
justice and mediation in the development of a response to complainants.
The consequent development of the Restorative Engagement Program has been informed by a number of
existing processes in restorative practice and mediation. It also draws on consultations with experts, who have
facilitated sexual assault matters in a similar context to the Taskforce (such as within religious institutions and
the application of international restorative justice programs that seek to address victims of gendered harms).
2
40
Report of the Review of allegations of sexual & other abuse in Defence, volume 1: Rumble, McKean & Pearce
third Interim Report to the Attorney-General and Minister for Defence
|
september 2013
Restorative justice in the criminal justice system has generally been used in relation to young offenders for less
serious offences and as a diversion from the Court system. The idea of dialogue between victim and perpetrator
is central to restorative justice processes. Its use in more serious cases, such as sexual assault, has been
contentious. However, contemporary scholarship and practice indicate that, when applied with appropriate
safeguards and in appropriate circumstances, a restorative process can provide an effective form of justice for
victims of sexual assault.
Distinguishing features of the Restorative Engagement Program
The model developed for the Restorative Engagement Program provides complainants with an opportunity to
tell their personal account of abuse and an opportunity for Defence to acknowledge and respond to individual
cases. The Framework draws on and adapts key features of restorative practice approaches. At the same time,
it recognises that the alleged abuse occurred within a particular workplace culture which the DLA Piper Review
observed had, in the main, failed to “call to account and/or rehabilitate the perpetrators of abuse.”
The DLA Piper Review Report notes that “there seems to have been a general absence of the kind of risk
management methodology which the ADF applies so rigorously when other issues of safety and security arise.”3
The distinguishing features of the Restorative Engagement Program include:
• in the majority of cases, a senior Defence officer or representative and not the perpetrator will meet with the
complainant;
• allegations of harm which have been determined by the Taskforce as plausible will not be disputed by the
Defence officer or representative at a restorative engagement conference;
• the process will be conducted by a facilitator engaged by the Taskforce;
• complainants will be provided with support in preparation for, throughout, and after the Restorative
Engagement Program process;
• the Taskforce will record any outcome agreements reached at an Restorative Engagement conference; and
• the Restorative Engagement Program complements other outcome options offered by the Taskforce.
Restorative Engagement Program Principles
In matters where the Restorative Engagement Program is being considered or undertaken, the following
principles will be applied at every step of the process:
• engagement in the Restorative Engagement Program process is voluntary;
• the Restorative Engagement Program process will only be undertaken in appropriate cases;
• the confidentiality, privacy, safety and wellbeing of complainants is of paramount importance throughout
their participation in the Restorative Engagement Program;
• all participants will be treated with respect and dignity;
• informed consent will be obtained from participants throughout the Restorative Engagement Program
processes and they will be informed that such consent may be withdrawn at any time; and
• although responsibility for harm lies with the alleged abuser, Defence acknowledges the importance of its
role in demonstrating an effective and enduring response to complainants by addressing their concerns in
the most appropriate manner.
3
Page VIII, Report of the Review of Allegations of Sexual and Other Abuse in Defence, Volume 1.
A pp e n di x F: R e s to rat i v e E n gag e m e n t P r o gram F ram e w o r k
41
Restorative Engagement Program Outline of Steps
(See Appendix B for a flow chart example of the Restorative Engagement Program process)
Referral
Allegations made to the Taskforce are first assessed by the Taskforce Assessment Group to establish they are in
scope and plausible.
After assessment, all complainants are referred to the Case Coordination Team (CCT). The CCT establishes
contact with complainants and explains the options available to them, including the Restorative Engagement
Program. The CCT also offers the complainant a Case Coordinator who will be his or her key contact point within
the Taskforce.
Steps following referral:
• the CCT contacts the complainant to discuss the Restorative Engagement Program process and the
complainant’s needs;
• the complainant is provided with information about the Restorative Engagement Program and informed of
his/her right to seek independent advice, including legal advice, prior to consenting to participate in the
Restorative Engagement Program;
• an appropriate Senior Defence Officer or representative is nominated for participation in the Restorative
Engagement Program;
• a recommendation is made to the Chair of the Taskforce to appoint a facilitator;4
• the Taskforce engages a facilitator to undertake a Restorative Engagement Program process;
• the facilitator will meet separately with the complainant (and any support person) and with the nominated
senior Defence officer or representative to assess the suitability of the parties for the Restorative
Engagement Program process;
• written consent to participate in a restorative engagement conference is obtained from the parties;
• the facilitator briefs and prepares the parties, and convenes the restorative engagement conference;
• the facilitator assists the parties to prepare an outcome agreement, where appropriate;
• the facilitator contacts the parties within 48 hours after the conference to respond to any questions arising
from the process;
• the Restorative Engagement Program Team will monitor the implementation of any outcome agreement;
and
• where participants consent, the Taskforce will obtain their feedback on the Restorative Engagement
Program.
4
In certain circumstances, the Chair may receive a recommendation that a matter not proceed. Complainants will be
advised of the reasons where a Restorative Engagement Program conference is not deemed suitable to occur and may be advised of
alternative options.
42
third Interim Report to the Attorney-General and Minister for Defence
|
september 2013
Formats for the Restorative Engagement Program
It is expected that the Restorative Engagement Program be conducted directly in a face-to-face restorative
engagement conference. However, in some cases, the Restorative Engagement Program could be delivered by
an indirect exchange of information between the participants. That indirect exchange could be effected by tape
recordings, electronic or paper mail, telephone or other communication strategies with the facilitator as an
intermediary.
The format selected for each Restorative Engagement Program will be the format which best meets:
• the physical and psychological safety of participants;
• the implementation of the Restorative Engagement Program principles; and
• the desired outcomes of the participants.
Phased Approach of the Restorative Engagement Program
The Program will be delivered in two phases.
In Phase 1, a small group of highly experienced and skilled facilitators will conduct restorative engagement
conferences with complainants and senior Defence leaders. The CDF, the Secretary of Defence, the Vice-Chief of
the Defence Force (VCDF), the Chief of Navy, the Chief of Army and the Chief of the Air Force have all agreed to
meet personally with complainants as part of the Restorative Engagement Program.
Some of the pre-conference briefings and some of the conferences themselves, will (with the consent of the
parties) be observed by an independent external expert who will present an evaluation report to the Taskforce.
Phase 1 will commence September 2013. Following Phase 1, the evaluation report and feedback from the
participants will be considered and any necessary changes made for the implementation of Phase 2.
Phase 2 will be the major part of the Program. It will involve potentially a thousand or so Restorative
Engagement conferences across Army, Navy, Air Force and the Public Service component of Defence around
Australia. The Senior Defence leaders will be 3-star rank (Lieutenant General and equivalent) down to and
including Colonel and equivalent.
For Phase 2, a large cohort of experienced facilitators will be recruited and trained in the Restorative
Engagement Program process. An expanded cohort of senior Defence representatives will be also be briefed
prior to participation in Phase 2. Phase 2 training and briefing sessions are anticipated to commence in late
2013.
Selection of Facilitators
Facilitators for the Restorative Engagement Program will be carefully selected, given their critical role in
achieving outcomes for complainants and the success of the Restorative Engagement Program.
Participation of Senior Defence Officers
The selection of a particular senior Defence officer or representative to participate in the Restorative
Engagement Program is the responsibility of the Restorative Engagement Program Team in consultation with
Defence.
There will be no automatic access by a complainant to a particular Defence officer or representative, nor can
Defence stipulate a representative for a particular case.
Participation by senior Defence officers and representatives in the Restorative Engagement Program will not be
limited to the Chiefs of each Service, but be spread across high-level ADF leadership, for two reasons:
A pp e n di x F: R e s to rat i v e E n gag e m e n t P r o gram F ram e w o r k
43
• the large number of anticipated Restorative Engagement conferences to be conducted across Australia
means that Defence participation cannot be limited to the CDF and Service Chiefs alone; and
• participation of a larger group of senior Defence officers will enable a wider level of insight into the impact of
abuse and the implications of this abuse for complainants, their families and the ADF. This insight is critical
to understanding the issues associated with the desired cultural change across the organisation, particularly
amongst the ranks of officers who will most likely become the most senior leaders of the Defence Force in
the future.
The process for selecting suitable senior Defence officers to participate in particular Restorative Engagement
conferences includes the following considerations:
• the rank (past or present) of the complainant;
• the gender of complainant;
• the type of abuse experienced;
• the complainant’s expressed preference for a particular officer (where considered appropriate by the
Restorative Engagement Program Team) and availability of that officer;
• the rank of the senior defence officer;
• the authority of the senior defence officer to agree to and his or her capacity to deliver the outcomes sought
by the complainant; and
• the suitability of a senior Defence officer to participate in the Restorative Engagement Program.
Cultural change in Defence
The Pathway to Change strategy is Defence’s response to the various reviews initiated by the Minister for Defence
into aspects of the culture both within the Australian Defence Force Academy and the Australian Defence Force.
Pathway to Change also includes implementation of the recommendations of reviews into the treatment of
women in ADFA and the ADF conducted by the Sex Discrimination Commissioner, Ms Elizabeth Broderick, on
behalf of the Australian Human Rights Commission.
The Taskforce believes the Restorative Engagement Program will make a significant contribution to the needed
cultural change in the ADF.
In addition to the Restorative Engagement Program, the Taskforce will continue to work with the Minister for
Defence, the Chief of the Defence Force and the Secretary of the Department of Defence in identifying and
responding to systemic and other cultural issues in accordance with the Taskforce’s Terms of Reference.
Review Mechanisms for the Restorative Engagement Program
The Restorative Engagement Program will be regularly reviewed to ensure the continual refinement and
improvement of its processes.
Facilitators will be observed by Restorative Engagement Program staff from time to time. Where necessary,
Restorative Engagement Program staff will review and discuss with facilitators issues of importance emerging
from their observed restorative engagement conferences.
44
third Interim Report to the Attorney-General and Minister for Defence
|
september 2013
Facilitators will meet regularly to discuss their experiences in restorative engagement conferences and
exchange lessons, concerns, knowledge and experience from their participation in the Restorative Engagement
Program process.
Finalised on 23/07/2013
By the Hon Len Roberts-Smith RFD, QC
Chair, Defence Abuse Response Taskforce
A pp e n di x F: R e s to rat i v e E n gag e m e n t P r o gram F ram e w o r k
45
Appendix A – Terms of Reference
APPOINTMENT OF TASKFORCE CHAIR AND TASKFORCE TERMS OF REFERENCE
We hereby appoint the Honourable Len Roberts-Smith RFD, QC to lead the Defence Abuse Response Taskforce to
operate in accordance with the following terms of reference as part of the Australian Government’s response to
DLA Piper’s Report of the Review of allegations of sexual and other forms of abuse in the Australian Defence Force.
The Taskforce is to:
(i)
assess the findings of the DLA Piper review and the material gathered by that review, and any additional material
available to the Taskforce concerning complaints of sexual and other forms of abuse by Defence personnel alleged
to have occurred prior to 11 April 2011, the date of the announcement of the DLA Piper Review;
(ii)
include in this assessment the 24 Australian Defence Force Academy (ADFA) cases noted by DLA Piper and the
cases of abuse identified by reports into physical violence and bullying at HMAS Leeuwin, and whether the alleged
victims, perpetrators and witnesses in relation to these cases remain in Defence;
(iii) determine, in close consultation with those who have made complaints, appropriate actions in response to
those complaints;
(iv) will also, as appropriate, gather additional information relevant to consideration of the handling of particular
allegations e.g. relevant records held by Defence;
(v)
take account of the rights and interests of alleged victims, accused persons and other parties;
(vi) liaise with the Minister for Defence, Chief of the Defence Force and the Secretary of the Department of Defence
on any implications of its work for Defence’s ’Pathway to Change’ and other responses to the series of reviews
into Defence culture and practices in particular the work done by the Sex Discrimination Commissioner into the
Australian Defence Force (ADF) and ADFA;
(vii) report to the Attorney-General and Minister for Defence every 3 months on its progress and issues arising,
including whether the funding it has been provided is adequate so as to enable the Attorney-General and
Minister for Defence to report to Parliament as appropriate;
(viii) report to the Attorney-General and Minister for Defence by October 2013 on whether, in what form, the Taskforce
should continue in effect beyond the initial 12 month period and the funding that would be required so as to enable
the Attorney-General and Minister for Defence to report to Parliament as appropriate, and
(ix) to advise whether a Royal Commission would be merited into any categories of allegation raised with the
DLA Piper review or the Taskforce, in particular the 24 ADFA cases.
The terms and conditions of the engagement by the Commonwealth of the Honourable Len Roberts-Smith RFD, QC
are to be governed by an agreement between the Honourable Len Roberts-Smith RFD, QC and Roger Wilkins AO,
Secretary of the Attorney-General’s Department.
46
The Hon Nicola Roxon MP
The Hon Stephen Smith MP
Attorney-General, Minister for Emergency Management
Minister for Defence
Dated:
Dated:
third Interim Report to the Attorney-General and Minister for Defence
|
september 2013
Appendix B – Flow Chart of the Restorative Engagement Program Process
WORKFLOW
Assessed as in scope and plausible
Refereed to Complainant Liaison Team
Complainant Liaison establishes Complainants Interest
Complainant not interested in RE Program
Case Coordinator Assigned
Case Coordinator provides further information to
complainant, confirms their interest; clarifies cases
being referred to RE Program and discusses possible
ADF representative and support person
RE Program Team
Complainant not interested in RE Program
RE Program Team assign a Case
Worker
Case Coordinator tasks RE Program Team to allocate a
case worker
RE Program Team arrange
proposed ADF rep and Facilitator
and advise Case Coordinator
Case Coordinator discusses proposed ADF rep and
Facilitator with complainant
Complainant not interested in RE Program
RE Program Team discuss
proposed Facilitator with ADF
RE Program Team make
Recommendation to DART Chair
Recommendation
not approved
Recommendation approved and
RE Program Team advises Case
Coordinator
Case Coordinator advises complainant
Case Coordinator discusses further with complainant
and ascertains consent to proceed
Letter sent to complainant from Chair
Complainant not interested in RE Program
Facilitator appointed
Facilitator conducts meetings with each
participant to assess suitability and to
prepare them for a facilitated conference
Facilitator decides matter not suitable for
facilitated conference
Facilitated Conference not conducted
Facilitator decides matter suitable for
facilitated conference
Complainant and ADF agree to participate
Facilitated
Conference
conducted
Other indirect
restorative conference
conducted
Written agreement
signed
KEYKEY
Beginning and end of
RE Program process
Facilitator follow-up with participants
Complainant Liaison
Case Coordinator
Facilitator provides Report to RE Program TEAM
RE Program Team
DART Monitor Agreement
Refer back to Case Coordinator
Facilitator
DART
Case Coordinator informs complainant
Complainant = Subject
Case Coordinator seek Feedback
Close Matter
A pp e n di x A : R e c o mm e n dat i o n s o f t h e D L A P ip e r R e v i e w
47
Appendix G: Administrative Access
Scheme
DEFENCE ABUSE RESPONSE TASKFORCE (THE TASKFORCE)
ADMINISTRATIVE ACCESS SCHEME (THE SCHEME)
About the Scheme
1.This is an administrative access scheme for the release of documents held by the Taskforce, in response
to a specific request, outside the formal process set out in the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (FOI Act).
2.The Taskforce is an executive body which is administratively housed in the Attorney-General’s
Department (the Department). Documents held by the Taskforce are stored in the Department’s record
keeping systems and as such are in the possession of the Department for the purposes of the FOI Act.
3.The purpose of this Scheme is to deal more simply and efficiently with requests that could also be made
under the FOI Act.
Types of documents that may be accessed through the Scheme
4.
A complainant to the Taskforce may request access to the following documents:
•
documents held by the Taskforce which contain the personal information of the complainant.
5.Access may not be given to documents or parts of those documents where access would not be required
under the FOI Act.
The Scheme’s procedures
How to make a request
6.
A request for access to documents under the Scheme should be made to:
DART@ag.gov.au
or
Defence Abuse Response Taskforce
PO Box 6010
Kingston ACT 2604
7.
The request should:
• clearly state the documents which are requested, and
• provide your contact details (including an email address if available).
Time frames
8.Requests by complainants for access to their own information will be dealt with within 30 days of receipt
of the request.
Referral to FOI process in appropriate cases
9.A request will be initially considered to determine whether it is appropriate to be dealt with under this
Scheme. If it would be more appropriate for the request to be dealt with under the FOI Act, the requestor
will be notified of this and of the FOI process within 7 days of receipt of the request.
48
third Interim Report to the Attorney-General and Minister for Defence
|
september 2013
Proof of Identity
10.Proof of the requestor’s identity will be required before access is given to any documents. In some cases
the Taskforce may already have received proof of identity, for example in a Personal Account form, which
may suffice as proof for access under this Scheme.
Form of access
11.Unless otherwise requested, access to the relevant documents will be given electronically. A request can
be made for access in another form, such as paper form.
Charges
12.There is no charge for the costs associated with providing access to documents under the Scheme.
Reconsiderations of Decision
13.Complaints about a decision not to provide the information requested should be made and will be
handled in accordance with the Taskforce Reconsideration of Decision Process.
14.A complaint could also be made to the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC) where
the request relates to the personal information of the requestor. However the OAIC generally requires
that you complain directly to the relevant agency (ie the Department) first.
15.Alternatively you can make a request for access to the relevant documents under the FOI Act (see below
for details).
Complaints
16.Complaints about the handling of a request should be made and will be handled in accordance with the
Taskforce Service Delivery Complaint Process.
17.A complaint can also be made to the Commonwealth Ombudsman about the way in which a request was
handled, however the Commonwealth Ombudsman usually requires that where it is available a person
first go through any internal complaint handling process.
Requests for access to documents under the FOI Act
18.Any person who makes a request for access under the Scheme is also entitled to make an application to
the Department for access to documents under the FOI Act. A person can choose to make a FOI request
rather than seek access via this Scheme.
You can get information about making a FOI request from the Department’s website and lodge a request
by emailing foi@ag.gov.au or sending it to:
Director
FOI and Privacy Section
Office of Corporate Counsel
Attorney-General’s Department
3-5 National Circuit
BARTON ACT 2600
A pp e n di x G : A dmi n i s t rat i v e A cc e s s Sch e m e
49
Your rights under FOI
19.
The FOI Act gives any person the right to:
• seek access to documents
• ask for information about them in documents to be changed or annotated if it is incomplete, out of date,
incorrect or misleading, and
• seek a review of the decision not to allow access to a document or not to amend your personal record.
20.You can ask under the FOI Act to see any Taskforce document that is held in the Department’s record
storage facilities. Access can be refused to documents, or parts of documents that are exempt. Exempt
documents may include those containing personal information about someone else where disclosure
would be unreasonable and contrary to the public interest, documents containing material obtained in
confidence, or other matters set out in the FOI Act.
50
third Interim Report to the Attorney-General and Minister for Defence
|
september 2013
Appendix H: Service Delivery
Complaints Process
Background
It is to be expected that some of the contact Taskforce staff have with complainants and members of the public
will generate complaints.
While a service delivery complaint can be made by any member of the public who has come into contact with
the Taskforce, it is likely that most such complaints will be made by complainants whose matters are being
investigated by the Taskforce.
Defining service delivery complaints
This Process applies to complaints about the conduct of a member of the Taskforce or some other aspect of the
Taskforce’s dealings with the person making the service delivery complaint.
It is important to distinguish service delivery complaints from a complainant’s expression of dissatisfaction about
the outcome of a Taskforce process, such as an unfavourable decision. Those matters are to be dealt with under
the Taskforce’s Reconsideration of Decisions process.
What the public can expect from Taskforce staff
The Taskforce is committed to delivering services in a professional, consistent and timely manner. Members of
the public making a service delivery complaint can expect to have their complaints carefully considered and dealt
with in accordance with this process and any other applicable Taskforce procedures.
Members of the public can expect:
• to be treated with courtesy and respect;
• to have their telephone calls returned within 3 days;
• to have their written correspondence acknowledged within 7 days;
• that the service complaint delivery process will take account of the sensitive nature of such complaints; and
• that staff members will act in accordance with the Australian Public Service Code of Conduct and APS Values.
Service delivery complaints about staff
A process for addressing service delivery complaints is good practice and contributes to the Taskforce’s sound
administrative process. It should also be noted that the Taskforce’s procedures for managing complaints made
about its staff will be taken into account by the Ombudsman in regard to any complaint referred to him.
The types of allegations about service delivery that may be made include:
• incompetence in the manner in which a matter was managed;
• lack of communication;
• the provision of incorrect or misleading information by a staff member;
• rudeness;
• lack of professionalism;
• allegations of unfair treatment;
A pp e n di x H : S e r v ic e D e li v e r y C o mplai n t s P r o c e s s
51
• undue delay; and
• allegations of conflict of interest.
Records
The Taskforce’s case management and other systems will hold details of its written and electronic
communications.
Staff are required to keep appropriate and accurate records of conversations with complainants and members of
the public. The record should include:
• date and time of the conversation;
• length of conversation;
• subject matter discussed; and
• any advice or information provided.
Accurate record keeping is particularly relevant in considering service delivery complaints. For example, if a
telephone call is terminated by a staff member due to offensive language after several warnings to the caller, it
is important that the details of the conversation and examples of the language used are noted.
When dealing with a complaint
When dealing with a service delivery complaint:
• Taskforce staff are entitled to be treated with courtesy and respect
• the Taskforce expects that the person complaining will clearly outline the specific conduct of the staff
member they are complaining about and identify the outcome they are seeking from the complaint process,
and
• the Taskforce expects that the person complaining will provide any material that will assist it to form a view
about their service delivery complaint including, for example, any written record of a relevant event and the
time and date of any specific incident.
Service delivery complaint process
1. Complaint received
Service delivery complaints should be in writing addressed to the Complaints Manager. The Taskforce will
acknowledge a service delivery complaint in writing within 7 days. If someone is unable to lodge a written
complaint, the Taskforce can offer assistance in drafting the complaint. However, before a complaint is
considered, the complainant will need to confirm that the Taskforce has accurately reflected the subject matter
of their complaint. Confirmation can be given over the telephone.
Once a complaint has been received, the Complaints Manager will confirm the matter is correctly categorised as
a service delivery complaint and not a matter which should be dealt with under the Reconsideration of Decisions
process.
If the service delivery complaint (or an aspect of it) concerns the conduct of a Taskforce staff member, that
matter (or aspect) will be referred to the relevant staff member’s immediate supervisor for management under
this service delivery complaint process.
If the complaint (or an aspect of it) the complaint is about the outcome of a Taskforce process, that matter (or
aspect) will be managed under the Taskforce’s Review of Decisions process.
52
third Interim Report to the Attorney-General and Minister for Defence
|
september 2013
2. Supervisor management
When addressing a service delivery complaint, a supervisor will consider any relevant records or material
that will assist in providing details of the matter. This consideration will include examining any records of
conversations or correspondence. The supervisor must then discuss the matter with the staff member and form
a view on the substance of the complaint and, if the complaint is substantiated, possible outcomes.
3. Advice to complainant
The complainant will be advised in writing of the outcome of this process. The letter should outline the enquiries
the supervisor undertook and the reasons for the conclusion reached in respect of the complaint. In most
circumstances were a complaint has been upheld, an apology and a general statement that the matter is now
being dealt with by the Taskforce is likely to be appropriate.
However, in cases where the outcome may involve some action against a staff member, the Taskforce must
respect that member’s privacy. Details of any disciplinary action should not be provided.
In some circumstances, it may be appropriate to advise the complainant of any broader outcomes which resulted
from his or her complaint, such as a change to a Taskforce process.
4. Escalation
If the complainant is not satisfied with the outcome of this service delivery complaint, the complaint can be
escalated to a more senior member of the Taskforce who has had no prior involvement in the initial process. That
person will reconsider the matter and form a view on the complaint and the appropriateness of its management
and outcome. The complainant will be advised in writing of the result of the reconsideration of the complaint.
That outcome will be final and the complaint will be at an end.
Possible outcomes
A service delivery complaint may result in one or more of the following outcomes:
• an apology to the complainant
• removing the staff member from any future dealings with the complainant
•
informal or formal counselling of the staff member, and
• Referral of the complaint to a more appropriate process. For example, a complaint alleging serious
misconduct should be dealt with under the relevant Attorney-General’s Department policies which
incorporate the APS Code of Conduct and APS Values.
A pp e n di x H : S e r v ic e D e li v e r y C o mplai n t s P r o c e s s
53
Appendix I: Reconsideration of Decisions
Background
The Defence Abuse Response Taskforce was established and operates under the executive power of the
Government.
The Taskforce’s responsibilities are set out in its Terms of Reference. In discharging those responsibilities, the
Taskforce will investigate and make decisions about many serious, complex and sensitive matters.
Those decisions will determine:
• whether a complaint is within the scope of the Terms of Reference;
•
whether the complaint is plausible; and
• the range and extent of the outcomes provided to complainants whose complaints with the Taskforce are
within scope and plausible.
While the Taskforce’s aim is to treat all complainants fairly and equitably, it is important to note that:
• complainants are not required to give up any legal rights or remedies they may have open to them to have
their complaint dealt with by the Taskforce; and
• decisions made by the Taskforce are discretionary based on the Taskforce’s assessment of the complainant’s
complaint, supporting material and decisions in similar matters(if any).
Reconsideration of decisions
However, the Taskforce recognise that some complainants will wish to query decisions it makes in respect of
their complaint.
Accordingly, the Taskforce has established this internal reconsideration process.
The purpose of this process is to allow the complainant the opportunity to provide the Taskforce Chair with new
or additional material which could lead the Chair to reconsider his decision.
Matters that may be reconsidered
The sorts of matters that may be reconsidered include but are not limited to a decision:
• that a complaint is out of scope;
• that a complaint is not plausible;
• concerning the rejection of an application for counselling by a complainant or the number of counselling
sessions approved for the complainant;
• concerning the appropriateness of a matter for participation in the Restorative Engagement Program;
• that a complaint should not be referred to Defence for consideration of military justice or administrative
sanctions; and
• that a complaint should not be referred to the police for consideration of a criminal investigation and possibly
prosecution
• made in response to a request for access to documents under the Taskforce administrative access scheme.
54
third Interim Report to the Attorney-General and Minister for Defence
|
september 2013
Where there is a reasonable expectation that the complainant may seek a review of a Taskforce decision, the
letter or advice to the complainant setting out the decision will:
• clearly set out the reasons for the Taskforce’s decision; and
• advise the complainant of this internal, informal reconsideration process.
Decisions made by the Reparations Assessor under the Defence Abuse Reparation Scheme Guidelines cannot be
reconsidered.
Taskforce reconsideration requirements
A complainant seeking reconsideration should comply with the following requirements:
• Requests for reconsideration must be in writing (the Complainant Support Group will assist complainants
who have difficulty writing);
• The request must be made within 28 days from the date the complainant received the original decision;
• Requests for reconsideration should identify the basis of the request for reconsideration and the
complainant’s preferred outcome; and
• Requests for reconsideration should be supported by any additional information (verified by Statutory
Declaration where appropriate or requested by the Taskforce) the complainant wishes the Chair to consider.
Requests for reconsideration should be addressed to a Director, Complainant Support Group.
Reconsideration process and possible outcomes
The Taskforce will acknowledge a request for reconsideration in writing within seven days of receipt.
The Chair of the Taskforce will consider and determine the outcome of all requests for reconsideration. The
Chair’s decision is final.
The result of that reconsideration could include:
• upholding the original decision and explaining why;
• making a new decision in place of the original decision and explaining why; and
• varying the original decision and explaining why.
The complainant will be advised in writing of the Chair’s decision and the reasons for it promptly after the
decision is made to finalise the reconsideration.
Once reconsideration is finalised, the matter will be closed.
A pp e n di x I : R e c o n s id e rat i o n o f D e ci s i o n s
55