Defence Amendment (Sexual Assault Prevention, Intervention and Response Commission) Bill 2025

Senator LAMBIE (Tasmania) (09:01): The first time I gave a speech in this chamber, I spoke about the cover-up of appallingly high levels of abuse and sexual assaults in the military. That was in 2014. Twelve years later, there have been over a dozen inquiries into sexual assault in Defence.

You would think that, after all the money and time spent and the victims having to retraumatise themselves by telling their stories over and over again, things would be getting better. I'm sorry to tell the Senate that they are not. The royal commission has noted that the Australian Defence Force has put in a range of reforms over the last 10 years, but, as they put it, 'despite these reforms, significant problems remain'.

I am very grateful to the royal commissioners for their excellent work and their recommendations, but there are a couple I didn't agree with, and recommendation 25—to hold another inquiry into sexual assault in the Defence Force—is one of them. Taxpayers have funded over a dozen reviews and inquiries into military sexual violence. We don't need another one.

We know what the problems are, and what really worries me is that another inquiry just becomes another excuse to delay taking action—no more. Let's be clear: you are asking victims once again to tell their stories. Fair dinkum!

That must not be allowed to happen. There's been enough trauma for those victims. I've got to say that I am extremely disappointed that Penny McKay, the Defence and Veterans' Service Commissioner, sent out a newsletter that said, 'Hearing directly from those with lived and living experience of military sexual violence will help inform the inquiry's recommendations.' That's not true.

This inquiry, headed by Natasha Stott Despoja, has no powers for the victims out there—none. They have no power to demand documents. They can write recommendations, but the inquiry has zero power to enforce any recommendations.

This is an absolute waste of time and money, and I will be telling victims of military sexual violence that they don't need to give testimony, because the military sexual violence inquiry will take on board testimony already given. That should have been made very clear by Commissioner McKay. Victims shouldn't have to tell their stories over and over again just so Commissioner McKay or Defence can pat themselves on the back and pretend they are actually doing something that will make real change.

You've had enough time. There is plenty of material for Natasha Stott Despoja to read covering the experience of victim-survivors dealing with sexual assault in Defence. I suggest, Ms Stott Despoja, that you read the dozen or so reports we already have, but start with the DLA Piper, girlfriend, and finish with volume 3 of the royal commission's final report.

I do not support encouraging witnesses to come forward, retraumatising themselves and pretending it will tell us something new again. It is so cruel. The majority of the submissions to the inquiry on my bill want action and they want it today, except for—yes, here we go—very disappointingly, the Defence and Veterans Service Commission, the Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force—nothing new there—and guess who else?

Defence—no surprises. Witnesses at the public hearing were like me, worried that Natasha Stott Despoja's inquiry will just cause more delays, and that means the status quo continues and all we get is more victims. Currently, ADF personnel are expected to continue working in some environments with known perpetrators and predators, and that can include victim-survivors working alongside their perpetrator, because the system cannot arrange separation or the victim-survivor is too scared to come forward.

I would ask everyone in this place to think about that and ask yourselves, is that somewhere where you'd like to work? Is it a place where you'd like your son or daughter to work? The review into allegations of sexual and other abuse in Defence conducted in 2011 and 2012, heard testimony from 770 people who became victim-survivors through their service our Australian Defence Force.

Dr Rumble, who led that review, retains a strong personal obligation to every one of those individuals. His frustration with the lack of real action to address military sexual violence was evident during the inquiry. Gary proposed Defence leaders should be asked, 'Would you advise your daughters and your granddaughters to join the Defence Force next week?' He was very clear: 'I wouldn't let my granddaughter go anywhere near the Defence Force.

This is urgent.' Anyone who has spent time and spent any time in this place or a bureaucracy knows that inquiries and reviews are and can be used to delay real action. Ms Ballard shared that view, telling the inquiry, 'Inquiries and reviews continue to delay, delay, delay any real reform.' Again, we know what the problems are. What we need is action, and it is way overdue.

My bill is heavily influenced by the recommendations from the royal commission and the other inquiries. The aim of the recent inquiry into my bill was to analyse it and see where it can be improved, and to that end I thank everyone that made submissions and appeared as witnesses. I also thank the committee secretariat and my Senate colleagues for their efforts and support while I dealt with my back issues.

I make a special mention of Senator David Pocock, who introduced the bill and sought its referral to the inquiry on my behalf. I cannot thank enough Senator Jessica Collins, who posed many questions to witnesses for me and has stood her ground all the way through it to get to the answers. Thank you so much, Jess.

I acknowledge that the government has made some progress through recent amendments to the Defence Force Discipline Act, or DFDA. Those amendments show a willingness to change in the government. I hope this willingness remains for the future passage of this bill.

I acknowledge the victims and survivors of the sexual assault—mainly women, but also men—and the terrible pain and trauma that it has caused you and your families, who have suffered. We must recognise that, despite Defence's efforts, it's not getting better. We must try a different approach, and that's what my bill does.

Professor Wadham, a witness at the hearing, agrees. He told the inquiry, 'This legislation takes cases of sexual assault out of Defence's hands, strengthens procedures and begins to reshape those institutional arrangements.' The bill addresses many issues that would normally be handled by regulations. I have made a very conscious decision that they should be legislated.

They must be captured in law—there is no other choice—so they cannot be tweaked, they cannot be weakened and they cannot be changed without the majority of parliament agreeing with them in the future. We need laws in place to protect our servicepeople and punish the perpetrators once and for all. Many of the submissions to the inquiry had valuable feedback on the bill and pointed out aspects that could be aligned to existing legislation, strengthened or improved.

I appreciate the feedback so much, and assure you it will be considered as we progress the bill and amend it where needed to get the best outcome and get the results that we need for a better Defence Force. The royal commission's commissioners asked Defence to tell them how many serving members have been convicted of sexual offences in civilian courts, even where those offences were perpetrated at work against another member, but Defence couldn't give the commissioners the numbers.

But Defence couldn't give the commissioners the numbers. The royal commissioners reported that Defence's own numbers showed that close to 800 sexual assaults had been reported in the Australian Defence Force over the previous five years. But the real number will be much higher.

Since the Defence Force Ombudsman was given oversight of serious abuse in the Australian Defence Force, they've received over 2,000 complaints of sexual assault or sexual misconduct within. This is nothing new. Past reviews have established that reporting of sexual assaults by members of the Australian Defence Force is low.

Defence itself estimates an underreporting rate of 60 per cent for sexual assaults in their organisation. Good on you for being conservative! Let's push that number, because I can tell you that Professor MacKenzie told the royal commission that she estimated that 80 per cent of people that experience sexual misconduct in military organisations don't report it.

Setting aside terminology discrepancies, just consider this: if those 800 reported sexual assaults were only 20 to 40 per cent of the total, then the number we are probably looking at is about 1,400—shocking. For some additional perspective, there are more than 2,000 women registered for the Australian Defence Force class action on gender based sexual assault, harassment or discrimination, and over a third of them—this is shameful in itself—are currently serving in our Australian Defence Force.

Gee, I wonder if their perpetrators are sitting there with them! The law firm JGA Sadler expect there are thousands more yet to come. I encourage you to contact them.

I encourage you to contact them, lady. They're the real deal. In 2012, a review conducted by the Human Rights Commission reported that they had heard from female veterans who had been sexually assaulted or subjected to harassment but didn't report it because they were worried about being victimised.

They didn't trust the reporting regime, and they feared their confidentiality would be breached. As Dr Rumble stated: Unreported abuse is a silent disaster for victims and for the ADF. And he is absolutely right.

With so much underreporting, the Human Rights Commission drew the conclusion: An accurate picture of the extent of sexually based unacceptable behaviour cannot be gained. Fast-forward to the recent royal commission, 12 years later. When they were writing their final report, the ADF still could not accurately quantify the prevalence of all forms of sexual misconduct in the workplace.

Defence couldn't even tell the commissioners how many serving members had been convicted of sexual offences in civilian courts. As the commissioners put it—and I quote: 'To say we find this concerning is an absolute understatement.' This is how we know—not guess but know—that rapists and sexual abusers are still walking around in the goddamn bloody uniform. That is shameful.

The standard you walk past is the standard, apparently, that you accept. In 2012, the Human Rights Commission recommended Defence urgently investigate mechanisms that allowed members to make confidential, restricted reports of sexual harassment, sex discrimination and sexual assault. In response, Defence established the Sexual Misconduct Prevention and Response Office, SeMPRO, but left out the most important bit—the restricted reporting element.

My bill fixes this and establishes a better mechanism to improve reporting. SeMPRO might offer support, but it does nothing else. Even then, I'd quarry about the 'support' bit.

It does absolutely nothing to change outcomes for victims or perpetrators. SeMPRO has been an absolute waste of space. For me, it's just another mechanism for cover-up, and that's all SeMPRO has been.

It does nothing to change the culture in Defence. If we don't change the institutional habits in Defence, the culture, then nothing will change when it comes to sexual assault. Defence holds the view that many of the proposed functions already exist within Defence and are performed by specialist bodies with statutory independence or dedicated expertise.

While that might be correct for some of those bodies, it fails to recognise this: those bodies aren't truly independent from Defence, are they? But the victims know that, and so do I. They aren't empowered to act independently.

In some cases, they are insufficiently trained or resourced. Ultimately, the current set-up is not working. Change is desperately needed now.

It is well overdue. Colleagues, I expect most of you have heard the phrase, 'Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.' Well, we can all see it is madness to retain the same institutional settings and expect things to get better. Some argue that members of the Australian Defence Force should be held to a higher standard than the civilian population, but they should absolutely not be held to a lesser standard or allowed greater leeway.

It has now been acknowledged that perpetrators of sexual assault are not suitable to be retained as members of the Australian Defence Force, but much more work is needed to look at sexual assault involving civilians in the Defence Force environment as well. Establishing the Sexual Assault Prevention, Intervention and Response Commission will provide a specialist organisation that can help Defence leadership deal with the issue of sexual assault.

It will help them meet the obligation on leadership to establish a safe working environment for their people. The bill isn't perfect, but it goes a long way to addressing the current issues. However, there is scope for improvement, and, with the feedback to date, I am working on improving it.

Give me a little more time, and I will bring the bill back with the necessary amendments as soon as I can next year. To my Senate colleagues: I also ask that you allow me a little bit more time so I can get this bill into the best shape possible and then bring it back for your consideration. When I do, I hope you can help prove to the victims that, while it's taken far too long to act, we have listened and we are going to take action that will protect others and tell perpetrators their time is up.

I apologise for the further delay and that delays result in more suffering, more trauma and more victims of military sexual violence. If anyone doubts me, let me tell you about an email I got yesterday from a former member of the Navy. You're really doing it great there in Defence!

The sender told me that concealed cameras have recently been found in the female sailors' shower facilities on the vessel HMAS Leeuwin based in Cairns. I was also told that this had occurred recently and had prevented the vessel from sailing while investigations were ongoing. Even more disturbing are claims that footage from these cameras may have been uploaded online before the cameras were discovered.

The sender's greatest worry is that similar devices may be in other vessels. How many of our female sailors have unknowingly been recorded in their most private moments? How much footage has been distributed online so far, retained or uploaded without knowledge or consent?

These are the questions I ask the Navy today. It's out of the bag. There you go, reporters.

Give the Navy a ring and ask them what's going on.