Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr President. My question is to Senator Evans, representing the Minister for Defence. The Department of Defence has announced eight reviews into allegations of abuse and misconduct in the ADF. Of these reviews, one relates to the personal conduct of ADF personnel and another to the process by which incidents and complaints were managed by the ADF. These are the only two reviews run by ADF officials out of the eight. Can the minister advise why these two reviews, unlike the other six, are not being undertaken by independent parties? Does the government acknowledge that some victims of alleged abuse may be reluctant to come forward because of this lack of independence?

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Xenophon for the question, and I can give him some information which has been supplied to me by the Minister for Defence's office. In April this year the Minister for Defence announced a series of reviews and initiatives into various aspects of the culture of the ADF. These comprehensive reviews were initiated following the raising of allegations of inappropriate conduct at ADFA on 5 April. The reviews are drawing on a range of expertise both within and external to Defence. In relation to the two reviews mentioned by the senator, the review of the management of incidents and complaints in Defence is being undertaken by the independent Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force. The review will have specific reference to the treatment of victims, the transparency of processes and the jurisdictional interface between military and civil law, which may lead to untimely decision-making processes. The position of Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force is appointed by the Minister for Defence under the Defence Act,. That ensures the Inspector-General is independent and free of action with respect to the chain of command in that his or her tenure does not depend on any member of the ADF. So this is an independent position.

The review of conduct is being conducted by Major-General Craig Orme, an experienced senior HR professional within Defence. The review is concerned with systemic issues, not individual cases, and the review team is consulting with external experts with experience and a professional background relating to military culture and organisational performance.

The two reviews of concern that Senator Xenophon has raised are reviews which we think are capable of being delivered independently by the persons I have referred to. We think this is the best course in terms of conducting those reviews. As the senator knows, the other reviews are being conducted by persons from outside the ADF.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. In relation to the review being undertaken by DLA Piper on behalf of the ADF to review allegations of sexual and other abuses, what consultation was undertaken as part of this process, including the terms of reference? Were victims or victims' advocates consulted?

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I know that Senator Xenophon is very concerned with these issues as are the many senators who have been involved in inquiries relating to these issues inside the ADF. Since the ADFA Skype incident was drawn to public attention a large number of allegations of sexual or other abuse have been made. They are all of serious concern. The minister has announced that these allegations will be dealt with methodically and at arm's length from Defence. The DLA Piper review has commenced. Its role is to determine the most appropriate way for these complaints to be addressed and whether further independent action is required. The process is underway and will report before the end of August. DLA Piper has been consulting with Dr Susan Harris Rimmer, an expert in dealing with issues of sexual abuse, and they will carry out their charter as efficiently and quickly as possible.

Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Some victims approached me and said they had difficulty in getting access to the terms of reference early on. Can the minister advise when the terms of reference were written, when they were made public and why they were not made available earlier in the process?

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think the formal terms of refer­ence were formally released on Monday, 21 June but the scope of the review was first announced by the minister on 11 April. Further development and refinements were made in consultation with DLA Piper. The essential scope of the review—the allega­tions of sexual and other abuse—was made public to Defence personnel in early May and more widely through a departmental media release on 21 May and subsequent national advertising of the review. I think senators would have seen those ads in the paper in recent weeks. So, while the essential scope of the review has remained unchanged, issues relevant to the review have been raised and addressed iteratively. So that is the process. The final terms of reference were released on 21 June and are publicly available.