Defence Ombudsman Pays Extra $7 Million in Abuse Compensation After Court Case

The Defence Force Ombudsman forked out an extra $7 million in military abuse compensation to dozens of veterans, after a federal court case forced it to admit its reparation scheme ought to have considered the ongoing psychological impacts of assaults.

The Defence Abuse Reparation Scheme (DARS) was an initiative that provided one-off discretionary payments to defence force members who had suffered serious abuse or sexual assault.

It ceased making payments for claims from mid-2023, after around 5,000 reports of abuse were made and more than $75 million was paid out.

In 2024, following a challenge in the federal court, the ombudsman conceded it had only been considering the severity of the act of the reported abuse, rather than its impact, when making determinations. This triggered a voluntary review of thousands of cases.

Around 2,000 claims were eligible to be reassessed, and as of late last month, all have been reviewed; with nearly 200 decisions being remade.

But not all are happy with how the ombudsman has conducted the review.

Veterans unaware cases were under review

Brisbane-based veteran lawyer Luke Armstrong said some of his clients were only made aware their cases were being reassessed after they got an email informing them they were going to receive more money.

He understands those whose decisions were not altered and who did not receive an additional payment were not told their cases had been reviewed.

Mr Armstrong said this denied them the ability to appeal that decision.

One of his clients, Matthew — not his real name — applied to the DARS after experiencing physical and psychological abuse for years within ranks, at multiple defence bases.

Matthew was told while his abuse was serious, it did not meet the threshold for the most severe form of abuse under the scheme.

"The abuse has had substantial and enduring physical and psychological effects," Mr Armstrong said.

"These injuries have impacted his wellbeing, employment opportunities, and overall capacity to function in day-to-day life."

Matthew had no idea his case was being reassessed and was not asked to provide more evidence.

This year, he received an email stating his claim had been reviewed and upgraded to the maximum tier under the scheme, and that he would be receiving an additional $25,000.

"I do think that it would have been a lot more appropriate to have given clients the ability to one, know that their case has been reopened and two, once they have actually received an upgrade, allowing them the ability to get legal advice first."

"It gives them natural justice rights."

Mr Armstrong said he is seeking compensation from the ombudsman on behalf of his client, arguing he has suffered a loss due to its administrative failures.

Process 'not an opportunity to make a fresh application'

In response to questions from the ABC, the ombudsman said it did not contact veterans whose decisions were not altered so as to minimise harm.

"In those instances [where a decision was remade], we acknowledged the impact that revisiting the abuse may have on the complainant and provided a list of support services available," a spokesperson said.

"This process was not an opportunity to make a fresh application or to provide additional information which was not provided with the original application: it was a review of how the original application had been considered.

"Complainants continue to have whatever rights they may have with respect to the original decision, which may include judicial review."