Report of the Review of allegations of sexual and other abuse in Defence Facing the problems of the past VOLUME 1 General findings and recommendations Dr Gary A Rumble Ms Melanie McKean Professor Dennis Pearce AO October 2011 © Commonwealth of Australia 2011 ISBN 978-0-646-56581-1 (Volume 1) 978-0-646-56582-8 (Volume 2) This work is copyright. Apart from any use as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, no part may be reproduced by any process without prior written permission from the Department of Defence. Disclaimer The opinions expressed in the ‗Report of the Review of allegations of sexual and other abuse in Defence‘ (Report) are solely those of Dr Gary A Rumble, Ms Melanie McKean and Professor Dennis Pearce AO. The opinions expressed in the Report do not necessarily represent the views of other contractors to the Review, nor of DLA Piper Australia. Each member of the ADF, from the most junior cadet to the most senior officer, is a representative of Defence and our nation. The Defence leadership and the Australian community have a right to expect the highest standard of behaviour and professionalism. ——The Hon Stephen Smith MP Minister for Defence April 2011 We are willing to face openly and honestly the problems from our past, and we are committed to developing and maintaining an inclusive work environment where all personnel are treated fairly and with respect. ——Lieutenant General David Hurley ASC Vice Chief of the Defence Force May 2011 Foreword The history, traditions and international standing of the Australian Defence Force (ADF) are part of Australia‘s national identity.1 The overwhelming majority of Australians—including the members of this Review—are proud of the achievements of the men and women of the ADF in honourably, bravely and unselfishly representing and protecting the interests of the nation in war, in peacekeeping, in border protection and in emergency relief work. Many Australians—including the members of this Review—have direct family connections with the ADF. During the course of this Review, the Review members have heard a lot about the ADF‘s need to maintain operational capability and about ‗moving forward‘. Central aspects of the ADF‘s operational capability are the loyalty of serving men and women to the ADF and broad community confidence in the ADF. It was, therefore, not a surprise to the Review members when we encountered resistance in our discussions with current and former leaders of the ADF when we tried to take them back to discuss past problems of abuse and what might be done now to respond to the ongoing effects of that past abuse. At one level there has been hostility simply because we outsiders—civilian lawyers—have been questioning ‗their‘ ADF on the particularly sensitive issue of abuse by members of the ADF inflicted on other members of the ADF. At another level there is a concern that a report by the Review drawing attention to past abuse in the ADF could damage the ADF‘s current reputation and, thus, damage the ADF‘s operational capability. We have had to consider allegations of abuse back to 1951 and across every decade since then. To carry out our tasks we had to survey the findings and evidence about abuse in the ADF in reports from previous Inquiries identified for us by the Department of Defence. There have been many Inquiries—usually led or supported by current or former high-ranking ADF members and all receiving extensive evidence from the ADF. With the assistance of the Department we have gone back as far as one major report in 1946 on the trial and punishment of offences against military law2 and two major Reports in 1970 and 1971 respectively, on the Royal Military College at Duntroon (RMC)3 and HMAS LEEUWIN.4 No organisation—let alone any military organisation of the size and complexity of the ADF and its predecessor Defence Forces—could expect to be free of issues of abuse across the 60 years of allegations which this Review has had to consider. And our survey of previous reports indicates that parts of the ADF have not been free of issues of abuse at particular times. It is possible that the Department of Defence—and therefore this Review—has missed some relevant reports. But across the many reports we have surveyed5 there are numerous findings indicating that there 1 See the Glossary for an explanation of the use of the term Australian Defence Force (ADF) in the historical context of this Review. 2 Board of Inquiry Report of the Board of Inquiry appointed to investigate the trial and punishment of offences against military law and the administration of places of confinement of military offenders (Justice Reed and Chaplain General Rentoul). 3 Committee of Enquiry into the Royal Military College, Report of the Committee of Enquiry into the Royal Military College, (Justice Fox, chairman), Canberra, 1970. 4 Judge Rapke, Report of an investigation into allegations of initiation practices, physical violence and bullying at HMAS LEEUWIN and on board HMAS SYDNEY, 2 vols 1971. 5 Relevant extracts from the Reports are set out in Chapters 4, 5 and 6. Foreword | vii have been substantial levels of abuse—including sexual and other physical assault—in particular parts of the ADF at particular points in time. Those previous Inquiries have—consistently with the ADF focus on maintaining operational capability— generally concentrated on fixing identified problems for the future. In those reports 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. In particular, there seems to have been an assumption that problems are localised and are dealt with as being local/isolated problems, without identifying the risk factors which contributed to the incident/problem to see whether those risk factors also apply in other ADF situations and whether they should be dealt with proactively in other ADF environments before problems can arise.6 And similar problems have arisen in other parts of the ADF and sometimes even in the same part of the ADF. There also seems to have been very little attention to the impact of the abuse on the individuals who were the victims of the abuse. And there seems to have been very little success in calling to account and/or rehabilitating the perpetrators of abuse. The Review has only carried out initial assessments of the specific allegations which have come to the Review. Accordingly, the Review has not found as a fact that any one of the allegations before the Review has been made out. That was not our task. The Review has heard the stories of many alleged victims. Although each particular allegation of abuse has its own specific circumstances and is the subject of a specific assessment in Volume 2 of this Report, there are some broad issues from the legacy of past abuse which the Review identifies for consideration and response. We address these issues in this Report and identify some possible solutions which we believe are worthy of consideration in Phase 2 of the Review However, taking into account the background of the findings of previous Inquiries and the circumstances and content of each allegation, and—where applicable—Defence file material to which the Review has had access—the Review is of the view that the overwhelming majority of the allegations which are before the Review are plausible and probably substantially accurate—and that many other people who did not come to the Review have also been affected by abuse in the past. Many of the stories involve horrific betrayals of the trust which real people—usually young people, some of them children at the time—who joined the ADF with pride and ambition, had put in the ADF and in the nation behind the ADF. These stories also involve betrayals of the trust which the leaders of the ADF and the nation put in the people who abused the young Australians in their care. The ADF does not carry all the responsibility for the past failures to protect ADF personnel from abuse by other ADF personnel and to protect ADF personnel from being drawn into engaging in abusive behaviour. Successive national Governments and the national Parliament have been on notice of issues of major concern about the welfare of ADF personnel in these areas and they have also failed to respond effectively. This Report is to the Minister for Defence and to the Secretary of the Department of Defence. However, it is clear to the Review that major issues about the current impacts of abuse from the past which we have identified in the course of this Review cannot be successfully addressed unless the leaders and former 6 With the possible exception of the 2001 Report of an inquiry into military justice in the Australian Defence Force conducted by former Federal Court Judge Mr J.C.S. Burchett, QC, an investigating officer appointed by the Chief of the Defence Force under the Defence (Inquiry) Regulations 1985. n.p., 2001. The inquiry team included a number of senior ADF officers and some NCOs. viii | Report of the Review of allegations of sexual and other abuse in Defence leaders7 of the ADF—NCOs as well as Officers—are persuaded that there are issues which need to be addressed and that the options which are outlined in this Report are worthy of consideration. Accordingly, we ask the leaders and former leaders of the ADF to consider the following propositions which affect the welfare of a large number of current and former members of the ADF and their families and which are fundamental to the ADF‘s future and operational capability.