“In 2017–18, we received 457 reports of serious abuse within Defence, with 368 received since the Government’s announcement of its reparation payment framework on 15December2017”
“In 2017–18, we completed the assessment process on 230 reports, with 151 reports accepted, whether wholly or in part, noting that some reports contain multiple incidents of abuse. The remaining 79 reports were assessed as out of jurisdiction and not accepted.”
“On 15 December 2017, the Australian Government determined that for the most serious forms of abuse and/or sexual assault, the Ombudsman may recommend Defence make a reparation payment. There are two possible payments which we may recommend:
If our Office recommends one of these payments, an additional payment of $5,000 may also be recommended where we are satisfied that Defence did not respond appropriately to the report of abuse.
As reparation payments are limited, as set out above, not all reports of abuse will meet the parameters set out in the framework.“
“Since the announcement of this reparation framework, we have sent 66 reparation payment recommendations to Defence. To 30 June 2018, Defence considered and accepted in full 51 recommendations, and none have been declined.”
“In 2017–18, we received 653 complaints about administrative matters, compared to 635 in 2016–17. The main issues of complaints were:
What happened to the other 85 accepted claims?
“A Reparation Payment was a payment of up to $50,000 made to a complainant as an acknowledgement by the Australian Government that sexual or other abuse within Defence is wrong and should not have occurred, and that mismanagement of reports or complaints of abuse by Defence was unacceptable.” – extract from original D.A.R.T and the correct way to assess abuse claims
This passage from the Ombudsman’s Annual report 2017-18
“In 2017–18, we received 457 reports of serious abuse within Defence, with 368 received since the Government’s announcement of its reparation payment framework on 15 December 2017”
This statement alludes to victims only coming forward with their accounts of abuse in order to get a Reparation.
The original D.A.R.T states :-
With such a low acceptance percentage (22% approx), what incentive is there for victims to come forward and reveal their highly personal and traumatic story?
Even if your claim was one of the lucky 22%, the amount of reparation payable is subject to individual assessments like ‘up to’ and ‘may also be’. Up to $20,000 could possibly equate to only $1 – not good enough!
The slowness of the procedure plus the unknown factor of whether or not their claim will be refused are factors not needed for victims who are suffering from the abuse in their claims.
Decisions of acceptance which are based on a money availability issue, would be enough to convince many to not use this new ‘D.A.R.T’.
DFO - The Claytons D.A.R.T - The Defence Abuse Response Task Force
You Are Not Having A Defence Abuse Response Task Force!