Defence’s Smith has major decisions to make on rape and other abuse, injustice in Defence

from Civil Liberties Australia

Defence Minister Stephen Smith is expected soon to announce the government’s response to the Rumble Review[1] into nearly 1100 allegations by more than 770 people of sexual and other abuse in Defence.

Mr Smith said on 23 August 2012 that he would respond “within days and weeks, not weeks and months”.  Come mid-October, there has been no response.

Mr Smith has some serious decisions to make, including what to do with “around 24” now mid-to-senior ranking officers believed to have raped female cadets at the Australian Defence Force Academy 15 years ago, in the period 1994-1998.

He may choose to hold a Royal Commission, as Rumble has suggested, into: 

·                  how many of the 24 “male cadets who raped female cadets at ADFA in the late-1990s” (as the Review says) are still officers;

·                  how many cadets who witnessed the alleged rapes, and did not intervene or report the matter, are still officers; and

·                  what to do with officers from both categories who are still in Defence who “may now be in middle to senior management positions in the ADF…possibilities that carry serious risks for the ADF”.

Mr Smith must decide how Phase 2 of the Review will proceed, and how to compensate the thousands of victims of the ADF. The Phase 1 Rumble Review believes there are many more people yet to come forward, who might be more encouraged to do so if they are likely to get an apology – their prime motivation – and cash.

As well as the Rumble Review, which ran from May to September 2011, there have been two reports of the Australian Human Rights Commission, under Sex Discrimination Commissioner Elizabeth Broderick: http://www.hreoc.gov.au/defencereview/index.html  These reviews were specifically into the treatment of women in the ADF.

The Defence Minister must also find a way to get the Chief of the Australian Defence Force to demonstrate leadership  – instead of mouthing platitudes – on curbing sexual assault, assault, bastardisation, abuse of younger people and a seemingly serious absence of moral courage among many officers in the three services.

He might well decide to ‘encourage’ the Chief of the Defence Force to reveal what he knows about bastardisation at Duntroon in the period around 1975. CDF Major General David Hurley AC, DSC and recently-removed Department Secretary, Major General Duncan Lewis AO, DSC, CSC, may be designated as leaders, but they have forgotten what leadership is. Given the chance to explain what happened when both were at Duntroon in that 1975 period, and to condemn any aspects which were inappropriate, as almost certainly some were, they wimped it. Here is how the Review puts it: 

“The Review has written to the CDF and the Secretary, each of whom graduated from RMC Duntroon in 1975, inviting them to comment to the Review on bastardisation while they were at RMC. The CDF informed the Review that neither he nor the Secretary considered it appropriate to provide a statement. “ (5.9.2. p75)

 

Perhaps in the two paragraphs above lies the real reason Lewis has been ‘laterally arabesqued’ and is – from 10 Oct 2012 – no longer Defence Secretary but the Australian Ambassador to the Kingdom of Belgium, Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, European Union and NATO.

Culture of silence

One of the main problems identified clearly in the report is the culture of silence that surrounds abuse in the forces. ADF officers and others actively dissuade victims from complaining about people who in civilian life would be locked up for their sexual and physical assaults.

In many cases, those who do complain are further victimised by their officers and their peers, sometimes physically, sometimes mentally, sometimes both. Some people alleging mistreatment to the Review were still emotionally shattered by their experiences 30, 40 and 50 years later. In some cases, they were telling their bottled-up stories for the first time.

If the ADF has done good things over the past half century – and it has – it has done some awful things to a lot of people in the name of bonding and building esprit de corps. In many cases Defence has harboured thugs and sheltered rapists.

 

Some officers who should possibly be in jail are almost certainly still in uniform, and are climbing the ladder of promotion. This factor so seriously concerns the Review that it has made the Royal Commission (or, alternatively, a Court of Inquiry) recommendation.

 

Of the 1095 allegations raised by 775 people, about 60% are from males claiming to have been abused, about 40% by females.  Some 42% of those claiming to have been abused were 21 or younger. The allegations are spread across half a century:

The time frame is from 1951 to 2011:

Pre 1960s   - 1.3%

1960s          - 7.8%

1970s          - 13.0%

1980-1984   - 8.1%

1985-1989   - 14.8%

1990s          - 18.4%

2000s          - 26.1%

2011            - 4.6%

Unknown     - 5.9%

 

ADFA accounts for 5.7% of allegations[2]. Some 39% involve the Army, 25.6% are against the Navy and 15.8% the Air Force. There are 6.5% relating to the public service or administrative side of Defence. “Other” and “unknown” make up 7.5%.

Overwhelmingly, the alleged abuse occurs in training establishments. It starts with abuse on a 13-year-old boy in 1951 and goes right through to 2011, while the Review was sitting. Allegations include extremely serious sexual (11%) and non-sexual (9.7%) assaults. 

Harrowing reading

While the Rumble team warn that they are allegations, and not proven, the Review finds 80% plausible. Where Defence has dealt with the complaints already, the Review finds the ADF’s management either inappropriate, or further investigation is required, in 95.5% of cases.  Just think about that figure for a moment: in 95 cases out of 100 brought to Defence’s attention, Defence got it wrong or did not do enough.

Of all 1100 allegations, the Review recommends no further action in only 14.3% of cases. In other words, more than 900 need more investigating.

The Review makes harrowing reading: no-one could take in all the details and retain respect for Australia’s Defence forces. There are pages after pages listing previous reviews into Defence, which haven’t achieved cultural change. There are allegations after allegations, during training, at sea, in Australia, overseas (though not so much on active fighting service, the report says). Defence has ruined the lives of children, minors, adults, families…and continues to ruin the memories and the mental health of young and aged retirees.

So unthinking and unresponsive has Defence been that, in some cases, sexual abuse victims were ordered to report back to work under the person whom they alleged had sexually assaulted them: this is like a suspected pedophile being allowed to continue teaching at the school where he molested children.

Many abused people discharged ‘dishonorably’ want their records changed to “for medical reasons”, so they can access more benefits. Many victims still experience a living nightmare, with abuse memories continuing five decades or more later.  In very many cases, the system let them down: the next person up in the chain of command was also an abuser so they could not complain or, if they did, they were ignored or, worse, further harassed or abused.

While the Rumble Review reiterates that it has made no findings of guilt, its tone is overwhelmingly believing: that is, the report’s tone and style indicates strongly that the three reviewers think most of the allegations are probably true.

Some other major Rumble findings, and observations on findings, include: 

·        The Defence administration, by not providing documents, “significantly delayed” the Review’s ability to do its job. This applied particularly to information from the ADF Investigative Service. 

·        The myriad of past reports – and there have been dozens – have concentrated on preventing problems in the future, rather than dealing with the wrecked lives that occasioned the relevant report.

·        Defence has found every reason for not investigating allegations: it fobs them off to civilian police, and doesn’t even take administrative action if civilian charges don’t go ahead.

·        There’s a cover-up culture of not ‘ratting’ on your mates, so criminal acts go unreported through warped bravado: the Defence culture, big on physical courage, lacks the tougher moral courage where people stand up for what’s morally right (say by reporting abuse of young males or raping of females by ‘mates’).

·        Senior officers may be so compromised by what they saw and did when they were cadets that they may be forced into silence, and fail to lead.

·        The Legal Services area of Defence is a record-keeping shambles, and an area where ‘customer service’ is not well understood: if it was not obstructionist in being unable to locate material requested by the Rumble Review, it was clearly less than competent[3]. CLA comments that the Rumble Review’s estimate of the competence and willingness to assist of Defence Legal matches CLA’s experience. The way Defence Legal thinks and operates also indicates, we believe, a trend evident across many government departments and agencies, where the Legal Services group/section performs well below a reasonable standard of competency and adequately serving the public.

Mr Smith must decide on what Phase 2 of the Review will involve: the very first decision should be that every officer in Defence, perhaps all ranks and administrative people also, should be required to read the Volume 1 report, including supplement, of the Rumble Review. And every cadet and midshipman entering Defence training establishments should also be required to read the Review in their first week in residence.

I’d just completed reading the document when a retired Defence officer friend asked me a question. Here’s what I replied: 

“I never thought I'd come to consider ADF officers as cowards, but that's the impression I get from reading the report. Year after year, decade after decade, officers have failed to stand up for what's right, and instead have knuckled under to peer pressure. I have nothing but contempt for people who are bright and shiny on the outside, but decayed moral vacuums on the inside.”

The criticism does not apply to all Defence officers but, sadly, I think it applies to sizeable numbers lacking moral courage, including many current and former senior and very high-ranking officers who enjoy reputations they don’t deserve because they turned a blind eye to very dark happenings under their noses…if not actively participating in them.

Selected findings/issues of the Rumble Review:

10.  From the 1950s through to the 1980s, the ADF and successive Australian Governments failed to put in place adequate protections to take into account the special needs, vulnerabilities and lack of maturity of boys 13, 14, 15, 16 years of age to protect them from:

·        abuse inflicted by other boys and young adults in the ADF; and

·        being drawn into inflicting abuse on other boys. (Page 100) 

11.  From the 1950s through to the early 1980s, many boys aged 13, 14, 15 and 16 years of age in ADF suffered abuse including serious sexual and other physical abuse inflicted by:

·        other boys in the ADF; and/or

·        adults in the ADF. (Page 100) 

14.  Until the last few years, the ADF and successive Australian Governments have failed to put in place specific protections to take into account the special needs, vulnerabilities and lack of maturity of young people – male and female – to protect them from one another and from mature adults in at least some ADF environments. (Page 101) 

17.  It is certain that many young females in the ADF have been subjected to serious sexual and physical assault and other serious abuse inflicted by:

·        young males in the ADF; and/or

·        mature males in the ADF. (Page 101) 

22:  Lieutenant Colonel Northwood working in parallel with the Gray Review identified 24 cases of rape at ADFA in the late 1990s. It seems that none of the matters went to trial. (Page 121).

Issue 3:   It is possible that male cadets who raped female cadets at ADFA in the late 1990s and other cadets who witnessed such rape and did not intervene may now be in ‘middle’ to ‘senior’ management positions in the ADF. Those possibilities carry serious risks for the ADF. (Page 121)

Issue 4:   Phase 2 should consider the possibility of establishing a Royal Commission or similar process to clarify whether:

·        Any of the around 24 persons identified by Lieutenant Colonel Northwood in 1998 as being suspected of having committed rape are still in the ADF;

·        Whether any persons who witnessed and did not intervene to stop rape in 1998 are still in the ADF;

·        If so, how to deal with that situation. (Page 121)

Concluding remarks:

The Review calls on the ADF, the Government and the Parliament to give proactive support to those in the ADF who have the courage to stand up for what is right when others in the ADF do, or have done, wrong. (Page 199-200).

Bill Rowlings, CEO of Civil Liberties Australia 

CLA  Civil Liberties Australia Inc.  A04043

Box 7438 Fisher ACT Australia

Email: secretary [at] cla.asn.au

Web: www.cla.asn.au

[1] Report of the Review of allegations of sexual and other abuse in Defence: Facing the problems of the past. October 2011. By Dr Gary A Rumble, Ms Melanie McKean and Prof Dennis Pearce AO. Vol 1: General findings and recommendations. CLA recommends  reading the Foreword and Executive Summary in Volume 1. http://www.defence.gov.au/pathwaytochange/docs/DLAPiper/index.htm

 

[2] The figures in the report ‘jump around’ somewhat, depending on how the Rumble Review has categorised them. The review says “847 people raised matters within the scope of the Review. One individual has raised 13 separate allegations.  The Review has before it 606 Fairness and Resolution Branch matters and 31 ADFIS (investigation services) matters to review.”

[3] See pages 14-17 of the Supplement to Volume 1, which is a further report on aspects of the review by Dr Rumble and Ms McKean.