Defence Abuse Response Taskforce

Defence Abuse Response Taskforce
Name	Defence Abuse Response Taskforce
Formation	2012
Dissolved	2016
Type	Statutory taskforce
Jurisdiction	Australia
Headquarters	Canberra
Leader title	Convenor
Leader name	Len Roberts-Smith
Parent organisation	Department of Defence

Defence Abuse Response Taskforce

The Defence Abuse Response Taskforce was an Australian statutory body established to address historical allegations of sexual and physical abuse within Australian Defence Force institutions, providing a pathway for redress distinct from criminal prosecution. It sat alongside parallel initiatives such as the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse and interacted with entities like the Australian Human Rights Commission, Department of Veterans' Affairs, and state-based police forces. Convened amid media coverage involving veterans and personnel linked to units including Royal Australian Navy, Australian Army, and Royal Australian Air Force, the Taskforce operated within the legal framework shaped by the Defence Act 1903 and executive decisions by the Prime Minister of Australia.

Background and Establishment

The Taskforce emerged after sustained reporting by outlets such as Australian Broadcasting Corporation, The Sydney Morning Herald, and The Age and advocacy from organisations including Ex-Service Organisation networks, survivors' groups, and members of parliament like Tony Abbott and Bill Shorten. Announced during the tenure of the Gillard Ministry and implemented under the Abbott Ministry, it was part of a suite of responses alongside inquiries initiated by the Senate of Australia and recommendations from inquiries such as the Report of the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee. The convenor, Len Roberts-Smith, a former judge of the Supreme Court of Western Australia, led a team operating from headquarters in Canberra with administrative ties to the Department of Defence.

Mandate and Functions

The Taskforce's mandate covered assessment, conciliation, and the administration of ex-gratia payments to eligible applicants alleging abuse occurring within facilities linked to the Australian Defence Force such as bases, training establishments, and ships. Its functions included intake through processes informed by precedents from the Briggs Review and coordination with legal bodies including the Civil Aviation Safety Authority only insofar as procedural analogies; it also liaised with state-based agencies like the New South Wales Police Force and Victoria Police regarding matters requiring criminal investigation. The Taskforce implemented eligibility criteria aligned with advice from the Attorney-General of Australia and followed guidance from inquiries exemplified by the Australian Law Reform Commission on victim support and redress mechanisms.

Investigations and Case Handling

Case handling emphasized alternative dispute resolution, employing conciliation panels and assessors with backgrounds in institutions such as the Family Court of Australia and the Federal Court of Australia. The Taskforce accepted applications from former members associated with units including 1st Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment, HMAS Canberra, and training establishments like Kapooka and Lackland RAAF Base analogues in policy discussion. It obtained evidence via interviews, medical reports from providers like Royal Melbourne Hospital specialists, and historical records from archives such as the National Archives of Australia. Where allegations intersected with offences under statutes like the Crimes Act 1914, referrals were made to investigative agencies including the Australian Federal Police and state police forces for criminal investigation.

Criticisms and Controversies

Critics from survivor advocacy organisations such as the Australian Survivors of Childhood Abuse network and legal representatives invoking precedents like the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse argued that the Taskforce lacked the coercive powers of a royal commission and relied excessively on ex-gratia payments rather than judicial remedies. Commentators in outlets like The Australian and submissions to parliamentary committees accused the Taskforce of limited transparency compared with bodies like the Ombudsman (Commonwealth) and raised concerns about confidentiality arrangements modelled on non-disclosure practices seen in private settlements involving entities such as Commonwealth Bank and BHP. High-profile critiques referenced the convenor's background, invoking comparisons to prior inquiries led by judges from the Federal Court of Australia, and questioned the sufficiency of support services equivalent to those recommended by the National Mental Health Commission.

Impact and Outcomes

Between its formation and dissolution, the Taskforce processed thousands of applications, resulting in conciliations and ex-gratia payments for claimants formerly attached to establishments like Puckapunyal, HMAS Hobart, and training programs tied to the Australian Defence Force Academy. Outcomes included non-criminal resolutions that aimed to provide financial redress and counselling referrals through systems linked to the Department of Veterans' Affairs and community organisations such as RSL (Returned and Services League of Australia). The Taskforce's statistical reports informed parliamentary debates in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, and contributed empirical material to reviews conducted by the Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force.

Legacy and Subsequent Reforms

The Taskforce's work influenced subsequent reforms, feeding into recommendations adopted by the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse and prompting amendments to redress approaches within the Department of Defence and veterans' services administered by the Department of Veterans' Affairs. Its closure led to calls for more comprehensive powers akin to those of commissions such as the Royal Commission into Defence and Veteran Suicide and strengthened interagency protocols with bodies like the Australian Federal Police and state coroners. The Taskforce remains referenced in policy papers produced by think tanks including the Grattan Institute and in submissions to parliamentary inquiries considering reforms to institutional accountability under instruments related to the Australian Public Service Commission.

Category:Australian organisations