Bills Digest no. 46 2007–08
Defence Legislation Amendment Bill
This Digest was prepared for debate. It reflects the legislation as
introduced and does not canvass subsequent amendments. This Digest
does not have any official legal status. Other sources should be
consulted to determine the subsequent official status of the
Contact officer & copyright details
an automatic right of appeal from a summary
authority to a single Military Judge of the Australian Military
the right to elect trial by a Military Judge of
the AMC for most disciplinary offences
simplified rules of evidence
a form of review for technical errors related
to the awarding of punishments and orders
simplification of offences and punishments,
changed jurisdictions of Superior Summary
Authorities and Discipline Officers.
Over the past
decade, a number of court challenges and publicly aired complaints
brought by former and serving personnel, their families and other
community members suggested that the military justice system was
flawed. Significant official inquiries included:
the 1997 Study into the Judicial System
under the Defence Force Discipline Act by Brigadier the Hon Mr
the 1998 Commonwealth Ombudsman s Own
Motion Investigation into How the ADF Responds to Allegations of
Serious Incidents and Offences
the 1999 Military Justice Procedures in the
ADF by the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs,
Defence and Trade
the same committee s 2001 Rough Justice? An
Investigation into Allegations of Brutality in the Army s Parachute
the 2001 Burchett QC Inquiry into Military
Justice in the Australian Defence Force, and
the 2002-03 West Australian Coroner s
investigation of fire on board HMAS Westralia.
Each of these
inquiries identified flaws in the Australian Defence Force (ADF)
military justice system and processes, and recommended changes. As
General Peter Cosgrove put it, while some of the recommendations
were acted upon, there appeared also to be an element of resistance
within the ADF, which viewed the military justice system as sound,
even if it has sometimes not been applied as well as we would like
In March 2003, the
Defence Legislation Amendment Bill 2003 was introduced into
Parliament. After the second reading, in October 2003 the Senate
referred the issue of military justice to the Foreign Affairs,
Defence and Trade References Committee for inquiry (the 2003
The 2003 Committee
was instructed to inquire and report on the effectiveness of the
military justice system in a number of areas. These included
determining whether the system provided impartial, rigorous and
fair outcomes for ADF members; mechanisms to improve transparency
and public accountability of military justice procedures; the
handling of inquiries into peacetime deaths in the ADF, from any
cause; and allegations of mistreatment of ADF members and of drug
abuse. The 2003 Committee was also to assess the impact, if any, of
previous reports on the military justice system, and determine
whether recommendations were acted upon effectively. Several well
known cases were identified for special evaluation. 
The 2003 Committee
heard evidence from former and serving members of the ADF,
including senior officers, family members, and other interested
parties. It concluded that the ADF has proven itself manifestly
incapable of adequately performing its investigatory function .
were found to be inadequate as a result of poorly trained and on
occasion incompetent investigating officers .  Boards of Inquiry were lacking in
transparency and independence. Processes of investigation and trial
were found to have placed great stress on individuals, leading to
loss of confidence, loss of employment, suicidal thoughts, and
attempted and actual suicides. ADF members were reluctant to lodge
complaints about superior officers, non-commissioned officers or
their peers because they doubted the effectiveness and impartiality
of the system. Review processes were inadequate. The report on
military justice declared: The committee believes that the military
justice system in its current form clearly needs a comprehensive,
ground up reform. 
Its report was
released on 16 June 2005. The 2003 Committee concluded that there
was a need for a wholesale review of the military justice system
and made 40 recommendations.
The Government issued its response on 5
October 2005. It agreed that 30 of the 40 recommendations should be
accepted in whole, in part or in principle.  Many could be dealt with by new or
enhanced processes within the ADF. The civil and military
leaderships of the Department of Defence expressed their commitment
to providing a fair and equitable workplace that includes a
transparent and cohesive military justice system . 
Because of the extent of the changes that were
acknowledged to be necessary, implementation is being staged. The
Defence Legislation Amendment Act 2006 (the 2006
Amendment Act) delivered on some of the recommendations. The
digest provides extensive background information and sections
of it are reproduced in the Background section of this digest.
This Bill provides for a further set of
changes which, in part, build on the changes in the 2006 Amendment
Australia s military justice
justice system has two distinct but interrelated elements: the
discipline system and the administration system. They provide the
framework for (discipline) investigation and prosecution of
offences committed under the DFDA and (administrative) maintenance
of professional standards in the ADF and investigation of certain
occurrences, such as accidental deaths of ADF personnel.
with under the discipline system can be grouped into three
offences peculiar to the defence forces, such
as absence without leave, disobedience of a command, and
offences similar or identical to civil
offences, but that relate to service personnel or equipment, such
as assault of a superior or subordinate, destruction or damage of
service property, or dealing in narcotic goods on a base, and
offences imported from civilian criminal law,
such as murder, manslaughter and theft of (non-service) property.
The incorporation of civilian criminal offences
into the military discipline system enables these offences to be
dealt with should they occur when ADF members are overseas in
circumstances where an adequate criminal law framework is absent
(for example, in a war-torn country in which law and order has
broken down) or if the application of host country law is
undesirable (for example, if the death penalty were to apply).
Under the existing
serious offences in the first two (military
specific) groups are investigated by military police and may be
dealt with by service tribunals which may be either Courts Martial
or Defence Force Magistrates
less serious offences may be heard by:
a Summary Authority, who is superior
officer, given limited powers of punishment, or
for officer cadets or any member of the ADF
below non-commissioned rank, a Discipline Officer
This Bill relates
to those less serious offences and aims to modernise and redesign
the summary discipline system.
The Explanatory Memorandum states that the
initial funding for these amendments has been identified and will
be provided from current allocations. 
Back to top
The Bill was referred to the Senate Standing
Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade (the 2007
Committee) on 16 August 2007 with a reporting date of 5 September
Eight written submissions were received by the
Committee from the following:
Of these, submissions 1 to 6 fully support the
Bill, on the grounds that its purpose is to put into effect the
recommendations of the 2003 Committee.
The submission from the Office of the Director of
Military Prosecutions makes two comments being that:
the scope of the right of an accused person to
elect trial seems to be limited and may need to be expanded at some
later time, 
the new powers of the Provost Marshal
Australian Defence Force as provided for in Part 2 of Schedule 7
will need to be observed to ensure that they do, in fact, expedite
the trial of certain matters as intended. 
The submission from the Law Council of
Australia (the Law Council) relates to appeals from summary
convictions. The Law Council noted that two distinct lines of
authority have developed relating to appeal provisions in general
criminal proceedings where matters arise while a trial is underway
and the judge is required to make a ruling on a particular issue.
These two lines of authority are:
- that the prosecution should have no rights of
appeal which can affect any ruling in favour of the accused at any
stage: the most that can be done is that there be a criminal appeal
reference which will clarify an issue of law (for future trials in
different matters) but will not interfere with a final verdict in
the case in which the reference is brought, and alternatively
- that the prosecution be permitted to appeal
interlocutory points and, indeed, to reverse a verdict of not
guilty. This approach is favoured, for example, in the State of New
South Wales by the terms of section 5F of the Criminal Appeal
Act 1912 (NSW). 
There is nothing in the existing DFDA or the
Bill which would provide for the second approach.
The Law Council submits that the recent
Federal Court decision in Commonwealth of
Australia v Westwood  FCA 1282
(Westwood) demonstrates why such provisions are necessary.
In that case, Justice Sackville ruled inadmissible a record of
interview, without which the prosecution would not proceed. There
was no right of appeal under any legislation.
According to the Law Council submission, in
Westwood, the Court accepted it had jurisdiction to grant
a declaration under section 39B of the Judiciary Act 1903
(Cwth), applying the observations of Brennan J in Sankey v
Whitlam (1978) 142 CLR 1 that most exceptional
circumstances would need to be shown before the Court would
interfere in proceedings which were underway. However, Sackville J
stated in Westwood, that it is almost impossible to
conceive of a situation where there would be most exceptional
circumstances, within the meaning of this test. 
The Law Council states that it does not favour
any amendment to the Bill which would allow any overturning of a
verdict of not guilty. However, it does favour the introduction of
provisions similar to those from section 5F of the Criminal
Appeal Act (NSW) on the ground that they have the advantage of
having been the subject of much appellate consideration and have a
well settled meaning. 
The Law Council also noted that the members of
the Australian Military Court will have had very limited experience
in relation to the conduct of criminal trials. None of those
currently appointed have held civilian judicial office before and
some members may have had almost no criminal or litigation
experience. That being the case the Law Council considers that it
is appropriate that there be the right to bring interlocutory
appeals to the Defence Force Discipline Appeal Tribunal which is
composed of experienced judges of superior courts around Australia.
The Westwood case relates to charges
brought against a member of the ADF under the DFDA and so it is
directly relevant to the contents of the Bill and the submissions
by the Law Council.
The Registrar of Military Justice has power to
convene a court martial and to appoint the members including a
Judge Advocate under subsection 119(1) of the DFDA.
Subsections 134(1) and (2) of the DFDA provide
proceedings before a court martial, the judge advocate shall give
any ruling, and exercise any discretion, that, in accordance with
the law in force in the Jervis Bay Territory, 
would be given or exercised by a
judge in a trial by jury.
Where, for any purpose in connection with the giving of a ruling,
or the exercise of a discretion, by a judge in a trial by jury in
the Jervis Bay Territory, the judge would, in accordance with the
law in force in that Territory, sit in the absence of the jury, the
judge advocate shall, for any purpose in connection with the giving
of such a ruling, or the exercise of such a discretion, by the
Judge Advocate, sit without the members of the court martial.
According to subsection 134(4), a ruling given
by a Judge Advocate in accordance with subsection 134(1) is
binding on the court martial.
At any time before an accused person is asked
to plead at a trial by court martial, the accused may make any
application he or she considers relevant in connection with the
trial: paragraphs 141(1)(a)(v). Once the Judge Advocate is
notified of an application the Judge Advocate must sit without
members of the court for a hearing of the application:
In Westwood a court martial was
convened by the Registrar of Military Justice to hear and determine
two charges against a Lieutenant Colonel in the Australian Army.
The charges related to the alleged loss of classified material
giving rise to breaches of the DFDA. The Judge Advocate made an
evidentiary ruling in accordance with the above sections of the
DFDA that the record of interview with the accused was inadmissible
on the grounds that the actions taken by the Senior Investigators
who had obtained it, were not in accordance with any law of the
An application was then made to the Federal
Court for a declaration that the actions of the Senior
Investigators were, in fact, in accordance with a law of the
Commonwealth so that the evidence was admissible.
In contemplating whether to grant the
declaration that was sought, the Federal Court carefully considered
the opinion of the High Court in the earlier case of Sankey v
Whitlam (1978) 142 CLR 1 as follows:
In any case in which a declaration can be and is
sought on a question of evidence or procedure, the
circumstances must be most exceptional to warrant
the grant of relief. The power to make declaratory relief has
proved to be a valuable addition to the armoury of the law. but the
procedure is open to abuse, particularly in criminal cases, and if
wrongly used can cause the very evils that it was designed to
avoid. Applications for declarations as to the admissibility of
evidence may in some cases be made by an accused person for
purposes of delay, or by a prosecutor to impose an additional
burden on the accused, but even when such an application is made
without any improper motive it is likely to be dilatory in effect,
to fragment the proceedings and to detract from the efficiency of
the criminal process.
if passed, the Bill will amend the DFDAA to
empower the Director, after the completion of a trial by the new
Australian Military Court under the DFDA, to refer a question of
law that arises in the trial to the Defence Force Discipline Appeal
Explanatory Memorandum records that the rationale for enabling the
Director to seek a determination from the DFDAT on a question of
law that arises from a trial by the AMC is that there should be a
procedure to obtain a correct statement of the law for future
cases. This is a standard procedure for correcting an error of law
in criminal proceedings. 
passed, the Bill will protect the position of an accused person by
enabling the Director to test the ruling only
. If, therefore, an erroneous
evidentiary ruling by the AMC leads to the acquittal of an accused
person, he or she cannot be deprived of the benefit of that verdict
even if the Tribunal ultimately upholds the prosecution s challenge
to the correctness of the ruling. 
The 2007 Committee conducted hearings in
person on 5 September 2007 at which the persons who had provided
submissions numbered 1, 4, 7 and 8 had the opportunity to provide
The Law Council answered questions about its
written submission and provided other comments about the proposed
sections 146A 
and 168B.  This
digest makes further reference to those comments under the heading
of Main Provisions . The spokesperson for the Law Council conceded
that the failure to insert a provision into the Bill in the terms
they had suggested would not be so serious that the Bill should not
The Bill provides for rulings such as the one
made by the Judge Advocate in Westwood to be tested after
the trial. This allows for the matters to be considered after the
event with a view to creating precedent that can be followed in the
future, whereas the Law Council favours the introduction of
provisions which would allow for rulings to be appealed during the
course of proceedings.
In Westwood the Court made it clear
that allowing for an appeal on a ruling in mid trial can have the
unfortunate effect of fragmenting proceedings. Given that many of
the criticisms of military justice have related to inordinate delay
in the trial process  it is doubtful that the introduction of such an
additional amendment would be appropriate at this time. However it
may be prudent for the ADF to place it on the agenda for
consideration and policy development at some future time.
Back to top
It is important to note that, at the time of
preparing this Digest, some sections of the 2006 Amendment Act had
not yet come into force. If the sections are not formally
proclaimed by 1 October 2007, they will come into force on that
In addition, the Bill has been prepared with
eight schedules which are in topic order rather than in numeric
order. This means that there are cross references in the earlier
schedules to sections which make their first appearance in the
The 2006 Amendment Act will create the
Australian Military Court (the AMC). The AMC replaces the system of
individually convened trials by Courts Martial or Defence Force
magistrates. It also establishes the makeup of the AMC which will
include a Chief Military Judge and two permanent military judges, a
part-time reserve panel and appropriate paralegal support for it to
function independently from the chain of command.
The ADF summary discipline system forms one
part of the military discipline system which, taken as a whole,
must provide the safeguards necessary to protect the interests of
ADF members. Commanders use the summary discipline system on a
daily basis. It is integral to their ability to lead the people for
whom they are responsible in order to ensure their welfare and
safety. It must operate quickly, be as simple as possible and it
must be capable of proper, fair and correct application by
commanding officers. 
Summary Authorities have limited powers of
punishment and are generally used to try less serious offences.
 Section 3 of
the DFDA defines summary authority as:
- a superior summary authority 
a commanding officer, or
a subordinate summary authority. 
The submission by the Inspector General
Australian Defence Force states that:
on a day to day basis the administration of
military justice at the summary level will routinely involve many
more members. In 2006, for instance, over 2000 summary trials were
conducted across the ADF whereas only 54 Defence Force
Magistrate/courts-martial trials were held. 
Item 2 of the Bill proposes
to insert a new section 111B. The proposed section
will require a summary authority to give an accused person the
opportunity to elect to have charges against them tried by the AMC.
Where the charge relates to a schedule 1A offence, the opportunity
to elect to have the charge tried by the AMC will only be available
to certain specified ranks:  subsection 111B(2).
Item 1 of the Bill proposes
to insert a new definition of schedule 1A offence into subsection
3(1) of the DFDA. A schedule 1A offence is one of 14 specific
offences under the DFDA including:
absence from duty under subsections 23(1) and
absence without leave under subsection
insubordinate conduct under subsections 26(1)
disobeying a lawful command under subsection
failing to comply with a general order under
a person on guard or on watch is sleeping,
intoxicated, leaves their post without being relieved or absents
themselves from a place that it is their duty to be under
negligence in performance of duty under
intoxicated while on duty under subsection
custodial offences under subsections 54A(1) and
prejudicial conduct under subsections 60(1) and
An accused person must be given the opportunity
to obtain legal advice about the election if a legal officer is
reasonably available  to give such advice: subsection
Under proposed subsection
111C(1) an accused person must make the election within 24
hours or within a longer period that the summary authority allows,
but not exceeding 14 days. This conforms with the stated desire of
the Acting Chief of the Defence Force that the summary discipline
system be able to be applied expeditiously and as consistently as
possible across the Australian Defence Force. 
If the accused person elects to have the charge
tried by the AMC, the summary authority must refer the charge, and
any other charges arising from the same circumstances to the
Director of Military Prosecutions and inform the Registrar of
Military Justice that the charge has been referred:
proposed subsection 111C(3). Charges are linked
for the purposes of this section to provide an accused person with
the additional safeguard of having all charges considered by the
Director of Military Prosecutions and dealt with at the same time.
If the accused person elects not to have the
charge tried by the AMC, or does not make the election within the
time allowed, the summary authority will deal with and try the
charge: proposed subsection 111C(5).
Under proposed subsection
111C(6), the accused person may withdraw the election at
any time before a date is fixed for hearing by the AMC. In that
case the Director of Military Prosecutions must inform the
Registrar of Military Justice and refer the charge back to the
summary authority who will deal with and try the charge:
proposed subsection 111C(7).
Item 3 proposes to repeal the
existing section 131 and insert a new section 131
which relates to a trial of a charge of a Schedule 1A offence by a
summary authority who is either a superior summary authority or a
commanding officer (but not a subordinate summary authority). Under
proposed subsection 131(3), if it is considered
that the evidence adduced during the trial is sufficient to support
the charge, and if the accused person were convicted an elective
would be imposed upon the person, then the summary authority must
give the accused person the opportunity to elect to have the charge
tried before the AMC, before making a finding in relation to the
Under proposed section 131AA
where the opportunity to elect has been given under the new section
131, the accused person must make the election within 24 hours or
within a longer period that the summary authority allows, but not
exceeding 14 days.
Proposed subsections 131AA(3) to
(7) are in the same terms as subsections 111C(3) to (7) as
Item 4 proposes to insert a
new paragraph 132A(3)(c) which provides that where
an accused person has made an election to have the charge tried
under subsection 111C(1) or 131AA(1) by the AMC, then the charge
will be heard by a Military Judge sitting alone.
Item 6 proposes to insert a new
schedule 3 to the DFDA. Schedule 3 has three sections:
Section 1 sets out in tables A
and B the punishments that may be imposed by a superior summary
authority on certain officers and on other persons
Section 2 sets out in table C,
those punishments that may be imposed by a commanding officer on
various classes of convicted persons, and
Section 3 sets out in table D
those punishments that may be imposed by a subordinate summary
authority on various classes of convicted persons.
Items 2 to 4 of Schedule 2 amend
sections 115, 116 and 118 of the DFDA. It is important to note that
these sections were also the subject of change by the 2006
Amendment Act and have not yet been proclaimed. Proposed changes to
subsections 115(3) and (4) establish the AMC s jurisdiction to hear
and determine appeals from a decision of a summary authority.
The Chief Military Judge must nominate the
Military Judge who is to try a charge referred to the AMC or to
determine an appeal to the AMC. According to the Explanatory
Memorandum, this reinforces that the determination of appeal is
independent of the chain of command. 
Item 9 repeals the existing Part
IX relating to review of a decision by a service tribunal and
inserts a new Part IX about Appeals to the AMC.
Proposed section 160 inserts
definitions which relate to the new Part IX. In particular Part IV
order is defined as a restitution order, a reparation order or an
order made under subsection 75(1). 
Proposed sections 161 to 166 are
about appeals which arise from a conviction.
Under proposed subsection 161(1)
a person who has been convicted of a service offence by a summary
authority may appeal to the AMC against either the conviction, the
punishment imposed or a Part IV order that has been made. The
person must specify the grounds of appeal and lodge them with the
Registrar within the appropriate period: subsection
161(2). If the appeal is against a conviction the
appropriate period is 14 days from the date of the conviction:
paragraph 161(3)(a). If the appeal is against a
punishment or a Part IV order, the appropriate period is 14 days
from the date that the punishment or order took effect:
paragraph 161(3)(b). The AMC may allow for a
longer period: subparagraph 161(2)(b)(ii).
If the summary authority has reopened
proceedings, the proposed subsections 161(4) and
(5) allow it to complete those proceedings before the
convicted person exercises their right to appeal. The convicted
person then has 14 days in which to lodge the appeal.
Proposed sections 162 to 164 set
out the circumstances in which the AMC must allow an appeal and
quash a conviction by a summary authority where:
Where the AMC does quash a conviction, it
decide that no further action is necessary so
that the person is taken to have been acquitted of the offence
under proposed section 165A, or
order a new trial by the AMC if it considers
that it would be in the interests of justice to do so:
proposed subsection 165(1),
substitute a conviction for an alternative
offence: proposed subsection
166(1). In that case proposed
subsection 166(3) provides protections to the
convicted person that the punishment will not be greater than it
would have been for the original conviction.
Proposed section 167 is about
appeals which arise from a punishment. The AMC may confirm, quash
or vary the punishment. If the AMC varies a punishment, it takes
effect as varied: subsection 167(3).
Proposed section 167A is
about appeals which arise from the imposition of a Part IV order.
As with proposed section 167, the AMC may confirm, quash or vary
the order, and where the AMC varies the order, it takes effect as
Sections 168 to 168E contain general
provisions about the conduct of appeals.
Proposed section 168B
provides that, in determining an appeal from a summary authority,
the AMC must follow the same rules about evidence as a summary
authority. Those rules are set out in proposed section 146A.
Essentially both the summary authority at first instance and the
AMC on appeal:
must act with as little legal formality or
legal technicality as possible, while ensuring fairness
are not bound by the rules of evidence whether
statutory or common law
may admit any documents or call any witnesses
that are considered to be of assistance or relevance
may give such weight to any evidence submitted
to it that is considered to be important or probative.
The Explanatory Memorandum states that the reason
for this process is to ensure that an appeal is based on the same
evidentiary basis that was used at a summary trial. 
Mr Paul Willee QC made comments to the 2007
Committee in relation to this proposed section at the public
hearings of 5 September 2007, making clear that the comments should
be attributed to him personally rather than the Law Council.
 He expressed
concern that a right of appeal does not provide a protection for an
accused person where the appeals body is bound by the same rules of
evidence as the original decision maker. It may be that the
decision could not be set aside on appeal because the summary
authority was entitled to come to the decision that it had.
Neil Rees argues in relation to court substitute
The stipulation that a tribunal is not bound by
the rules of evidence is not particularly clear for it does not
mean that a tribunal may refuse to apply a number of fundamental
principles of law which are sometimes cast as the law of evidence.
Even though he directs his comments to court
substitute tribunals they are analogous to the terms of the Bill.
That is, the fact that the summary authority in considering the
charges against an accused person, and the AMC in considering an
appeal from the same circumstances, are not bound by the rules of
evidence does not mean that they will not apply them. Under section
188AR of the 2006 Amendment Act, the AMC is staffed by, amongst
other things, military judges who have been enrolled as legal
practitioners for not less than 5 years. This creates an
expectation that an appeal conducted by the AMC would be conducted
in the manner expected of an officer of the Court.
Proposed section 168 provides
that where the appeal hearing is conducted in Australia the
appellant person may be represented by a member of the Defence
Force or a legal practitioner. Where the appeal is conducted
outside Australia the appellant may, in addition, choose to be
represented by a person qualified to practise in the courts of that
place. The AMC must, to the extent that the exigencies of service
permit, cause the convicted person to be afforded the opportunity
to be represented at the appeal, and to be advised before the
appeal, by a legal officer: proposed subsection
Proposed section 168A provides
that the AMC may determine an appeal by holding a
hearing or by considering the documents or other material provided
to it. There is no requirement to hold a hearing if it appears that
the issues can be determined in the absence of the parties. The
Explanatory Memorandum states that:
The ability of the AMC to deal with an appeal on
the papers avoids the requirement for evidence to be reheard where
the statutorily independent AMC is of the opinion that such a
course is unnecessary A very important protection exists for the
accused that is, if it appears that the issues cannot be adequately
determined on the papers, a hearing must be held (and the appeal
must be held in the presence of the accused). 
According to proposed section
168E the AMC may use video and audio links in the hearing
of appeals as for conducting trials. The relevant provisions are
contained in the 2006 Amendment Act which will come into force on 1
Part 2 of Schedule 2 contains
consequential amendments to the DFDA to reflect the new appeals
system. For example proposed section 172A provides
that the operation of a restitution order or a reparation order
made by a summary authority is suspended until the appeal is
determined or abandoned. Similarly, the proposed subsection
176(1) provides that where a punishment is imposed by a
summary authority , it must not be carried out pending the
determination of the appeal. The Explanatory Memorandum states that
this will ensure that a person is not disadvantaged by having to
serve any punishment pending the determination of their appeal
which may find the original conviction and punishment were
Schedule 3 sets out the rules of evidence to be
followed in a trial by a summary authority and in a trial by the
AMC of a summary matter.
The amendments to section 146 set out the rules
of evidence for a trial by the AMC.
These rules are different from those which are
contained in proposed section 146A which relate to
a trial by a summary authority. The rules in proposed
section 146A are the same as in proposed section 168B and
provide that formal rules of evidence need not be followed.
As already stated, Mr Paul Willee QC made
comments to the 2007 Committee in relation to this proposed section
at the public hearings of 5 September 2007, making clear that the
comments should be attributed to him personally rather than the Law
Council. His concerns were, essentially, that the removal of the
requirement that the summary authority must apply the rules of
evidence would be a backward step which would return the ADF to an
era when summary authorities acted with caprice and there was a
pervasive sense that the outcome of summary proceedings was
He acknowledged that review and appeal procedures
are a protection to an accused person but questioned why a person
should be forced through the review and appeal process when it was
preferable to make the correct decision at first instance. 
The Explanatory Memorandum states that these
changes create simplified rules of evidence which are based on the
Canadian Forces summary discipline system.  In addition
Given the nature of summary proceedings and
allowing for the fact that very few summary authorities are legally
qualified, complex rules of evidence at this level are
inappropriate and can unnecessarily delay and complicate a trial.
It is intended to exclude the operation of more complex evidence
provisions, such as the Evidence Act 1995
(Cth) and to
allow summary trials to occur on a less formal basis while
nonetheless ensuring appropriate safeguards for a fair trial.
Item 10 revises section 149
which provides for the making of Summary Authority Rules so that
they are made by the Chief Military Judge. The effect of
proposed section 146A is that a summary authority
must comply with the summary authority rules in any proceedings
which it conducts. The Summary Authority Rules will be legislative
instruments as defined by the Legislative Instruments Act
2003 and may be disallowed by the Parliament. Under
item 9 existing section 147 is repealed and the
proposed section 147 requires that the AMC take
judicial notice of all matters within the general service knowledge
of the Court and where applicable, the jury.
Schedule 4 inserts a new Part VIIIA into the DFDA
and is about formal review of the proceedings of a summary
authority which have resulted in conviction of a person for a
service offence: proposed section 150A.
Review is undertaken in respect of technical
errors related to the awarding of punishments and orders, for
example where the imposition of a punishment is beyond the power of
the summary authority. In the case of certain more severe
punishments, an additional safeguard will apply through the
continuation of the requirement for them to be approved by a
reviewing authority before they take effect. 
Proposed section 150 introduces
two new definitions as follows:
reviewing authority means: an officer or class
of officers who have been appointed by the Chief of the Defence
Force or a service chief to review proceedings of a summary
authority , and
competent reviewing authority means a reviewing
authority which did not exercise any of the powers or perform any
of the functions of a superior authority in relation to the charge
that is being reviewed.
Proposed section 151 is about
reviewing the proceedings of a subordinate summary
authority and sets out the following process:
as soon as practicable after a subordinate
summary authority convicts a person of a service offence they must
give a record of the proceedings to their commanding officer
the commanding officer is the reviewing
the commanding officer may obtain
advice about the matter from a legal officer
their review must be carried out within 30 days
or a longer period depending on the exigencies of service
after the review is carried out the commanding
officer must give a legal officer the record of the proceedings and
the commanding officer s report of their review
once the legal officer has received the
documents from the commanding officer they can either:
Proposed subsections 151(7) to
(9) set out who must notify the parties of the outcome of
Proposed section 152 is about
review of the proceedings of a superior summary authority
or a commanding officer and sets out the following process:
as soon as practicable after a superior summary
authority or a commanding officer convict a person of a service
offence they must give a record of the proceedings to a competent
the competent reviewing authority must
obtain advice from a legal officer
their review must be carried out within 30 days
or a longer period depending on the exigencies of service
after the review is carried out the competent
reviewing authority must notify the original decision maker and the
person who was convicted of the outcome of the review in
Proposed sections 153 and 153A
are about the circumstances in which proceedings are reopened. If a
reviewing authority or competent reviewing authority concludes that
the summary authority imposed a punishment or made an order against
the convicted person that it had no power to make, then they can
require the summary authority to reopen the proceedings. In that
case the summary authority must:
tell the convicted person that the proceedings
are to be reopened
take relevant action about the punishment or
report to the reviewing authority which
required the proceedings to be reopened.
The exception to this is if the convicted person
has lodged an appeal to the AMC. If there is no appeal lodged prior
to the reopening, the convicted person has a right of appeal to the
AMC after the reopening process has been finalised:
proposed section 154. In addition, the reviewing
authority may recommend to the convicted person that they lodge an
appeal to the AMC in the circumstances specified in
proposed section 155. In those circumstances the
reviewing authority must tell the convicted person in writing of
the reasons for that recommendation and provide a copy of their
notice to the convicted person s commanding officer.
Proposed sections 156 to 159
deals with review of certain punishments that are subject to
approval by a reviewing authority. If a summary authority imposes a
punishment specified in section 172(2) or an order under Part IV,
the reviewing authority must approve or not approve the punishment
or order and the date from which it must take effect.
Proposed subsection 159(3)
contains a protection for a convicted person so that a reviewing
authority cannot impose a punishment or make an order under Part IV
that is more severe than that which was originally imposed by the
Items 3 to 20 of Schedule 4
make consequential amendments to various provisions of the DFDA as
a result of the new review system and to reflect new definitions
and phrases such as review and reviewing authority .
In addition to his earlier comments to the
2007 Committee at the public hearings of 5 September 2007, Mr Paul
Willee QC expressed his concern about the qualifications of
reviewing authorities. He advised the 2007 Committee that there had
formerly, under section 154 of the DFDA been a requirement that a
reviewing authority not commence a review without first obtaining a
report a legal officer who was appointed by the Chief of the
Defence force on the recommendation of the Judge Advocate General.
 He was
concerned that there is no person of that type referred to in the
proposed Schedule 4. Mr Willee stated that he was concerned that
those persons who were called upon to give advice to reviewing
authorities under the proposed legislation would be lacking in
military trials experience and that this would be a retrospective
By way of response Rear Admiral Bonser, Head
of the Military Justice Implementation Team, Department of Defence
the review process, which is based on legal
advice, will provide another avenue by which to correct
inappropriately awarded punishments or orders that may not
otherwise have been the subject of an appeal to the Australian
Military Court, where the Military Judges replaces the previous
reviewing officers who were supported by legal officers. The
section 154 reports that Mr Willee referred to only apply to Court
Martials and Defence Force Magistrate trials, which cease on 1
October. They do not apply to summary procedures. 
cannabis is extended to mean all forms of
cannabis, excepting only cannabis fibre
prohibited drug means a narcotic
substance as defined by subsection 4(1) of the Customs Act
1901 or anabolic steroid within the meaning of Part 5 of the
Poisons and Drugs Act 1978 of the Australian
prescribed quantity in relation to a prohibited
for a narcotic substance, a trafficable amount
under the Criminal Code and
for any other prohibited drug 50 grams.
According to the Explanatory Memorandum these
changes have been made to more properly reflect contemporary
illicit drugs use.  In particular the limited quantity and range of drugs
specified in the existing section 59 is insufficient to support
enforcement and application of the Australian Defence Force s no
Items 12 to 17 amend existing
section 60. In its current form it provides that a defence member
is guilty of an offence if the member engages in conduct that is
likely to prejudice the discipline of, or bring discredit on the
Defence Force. The maximum punishment is imprisonment for three
months. Item 13 proposes to insert a new
subsection 60(1A) which will add that the offence can also
be committed by omitting to do something. Item 17
provides for a defence of reasonable excuse for omitting to perform
the relevant act.
It is important to note that according to the
Guide to Framing Commonwealth Offences, Civil Penalties and
Enforcement Powers, a phrase such as without reasonable excuse
should not be used in the context of Commonwealth offences because
the phrase is too open-ended. Generally, the only circumstance in
which the use of a reasonable excuse defence can be justified is if
the potential for innocuous conduct being caught by the offence is
so great that it is not practical to design specific defences. In
such cases there will be real questions about whether the width of
the offence is too broad. 
In addition, subsection 60(1) and the
proposed subsection 60(1A) are strict liability
offences. This means that it is not necessary to prove that there
has been any mental element such as intent in order to establish
guilt. The Explanatory Memorandum states that a trade off for a
strict liability offence would normally be to reduce the maximum
penalty for the offence, and that criminal law policy
considerations provide that for a strict liability offence, the
maximum punishment should be limited to a substantial fine.
However in this Bill no such trade off has
occurred. As the purpose and jurisdiction of the offence is limited
to members of the ADF, the existing maximum punishment of 3 months
imprisonment has been retained. It is noted that the Office of the
Director of Military Prosecutions has supported these amendments.
Under the current system, sentences of
detention must either be served or suspended in full. Items
19 to 38 amend various provisions in the DFDA so that a
service tribunal can suspend part of a punishment in addition to
full suspension. The Explanatory Memorandum states that this is
consistent with the options available to civilian courts and with
section 79 of the DFDA which allows for part suspension of fines.
Schedule 6 amends Part IXA of the DFDA.
Item 1 inserts the definition of
prescribed defence member , being:
- an officer of or below the naval rank of lieutenant, the rank
of captain in the Army or the rank of flight lieutenant or
an officer cadet or
a defence member who holds a rank below
non-commissioned rank. 
Existing section 169B provides that a commanding
officer may, in writing, appoint officers or warrant officers to be
discipline officers . Item 3 inserts
proposed subsection 169C(2) which provides that
discipline officers have the jurisdiction to deal with discipline
infringements by certain classes of specified officers.
Items 4 to 9
makes consequential amendments to various provisions of Part IXA to
reflect the new definition of prescribed defence member .
Item 10 inserts proposed
subsection 169F(1A). It limits the punishments which a
discipline officer can give to a prescribed defence member to
Item 11 inserts a new
section 169FB which is about the consequences of
punishments. The proposed section allows the Chief of the Defence
Force or a service chief to make rules that apply to the
punishments imposed by a discipline officer. These rules are
legislative instruments under the Legislative Instruments Act
2003 and as such may be disallowed by the Parliament. Under
proposed subsection 169FB(2) the commanding
officer of a defence member who is subject to a punishment for a
disciplinary infringement may moderate the consequences of the
punishment in a way that they think is appropriate.
Item 14 inserts new
section 169GA to require a discipline officer to provide a
report to their commanding officer in relation to the nature and
extent of any punishment imposed. The Explanatory Memorandum states
that the intention of the amendment is to provide a safeguard
through legislated oversight of the discipline officer scheme.
Part 1 of Schedule 7 relates to
the powers of the Director of Military Prosecutions.
Items 1-3 clarify the powers of
the Director of Military Prosecutions including:
charging a member with a service offence under
summonsing a member to appear before a summary
authority under paragraph 87(1)(b)
referring a charge to a summary authority under
requesting the Registrar of Military Justice to
refer the charge to the AMC (once the 2006 Amendment Act comes into
force) under subparagraphs 87(1)(c)(ii) and (iii) and
deciding that a class 3 offence 
is to be tried by the
Military Judge alone under subsection 103A(2).
Brigadier McDade advised the Committee of her
approval of these amendments which will enhance the ability of the
Office of the Director of Military Prosecutions to perform its
statutory functions. 
Items 5 14 amend the DFDAA. In
particular items 7 to 12 insert new Division 1A in
Part III to enable the Director of Military Prosecutions to seek a
determination from the Defence Force Discipline Appeal Tribunal on
a question of law that arose in a trial before the AMC. See the
earlier comments under the heading Key Issues .
Part 2 of Schedule 7 relates to
the powers of the Provost Marshal Australian Defence Force.
Items 15 17 amend the DFDA so that the Provost
Marshal Australian Defence Force, defined in proposed
subsection 3(1), can refer a serious service offence to
the Director of Military Prosecutions in appropriate circumstances.
The Explanatory Memorandum states that this provision will allow
more serious matters to be referred directly to the Director of
Military Prosecutions and trial before the AMC without the
requirement for unnecessary proceedings before a summary authority.
Part 3 of Schedule 7 amends the
DFDA to expand the jurisdiction of superior summary authorities.
Under proposed amendments a superior summary authority will cover
ranks up to rear admiral, major-general or air vice-marshal:
Item 22 inserts a new
section 108A. Under the proposed section a summary
authority is disqualified from trying a charge of a service offence
against a person if the summary authority has been involved in the
investigation of the offence, issuing a warrant for the arrest of
the person or charging the person with the offence. If any of those
circumstances arise the summary authority must refer the charge to
another summary authority which is not similarly disqualified from
hearing the charge: proposed subsection
Existing subsection 141(1) provides that at any
time before an accused person is asked to plead at a trial by a
service tribunal the accused person can, according to paragraph
(b), enter an objection to the charge on any ground. Item
23 proposes to insert a new subparagraph
(vi) which will provide that one of the reasons for
objecting is where a summary authority has failed to disqualify
itself in accordance with proposed subsection 108A(1).
Part 4 of Schedule 7 is about
trials by summary authorities. Item 25 inserts
proposed section 129 which provides that the trial
of a charge of a service offence by a summary authority must be
commenced within the period of 3 months after the person is charged
or such longer period if the exigencies of the service do not allow
for this time frame. Where the trial cannot be commenced within 3
months the summary authority must refer the charge to the Director
of Military Prosecutions.
Item 26 substitutes a
new paragraph 130(1)(a) for the existing
paragraph. The new paragraph provides that where an accused person
is present, pleads guilty and is found to understand the
implications of their plea, the person will be convicted. In
addition it provides that, subject to subsection 139(4) an accused
person may be absent and plead guilty to a charge in writing. In
that case, the accused person will be convicted.
Item 28 inserts proposed
section 131B which provides that where a person has been
convicted by a summary authority of a service offence the
conviction has effect for service purposes only and the person is
not required to disclose to any person the fact of the
Items 31 to 34 make
consequential amendments to the DFDA to reflect the functions of
the Registrar of the AMC.
Item 36 provides for new
subsections 171(1B) and (1C). These
subsections give the AMC the authority to impose a punishment of
dismissal which will take effect within a period of 30 days. This
is appropriate where a person has been found guilty and dismissed
whilst in an operational theatre. 
Item 37 amends the Defence Act
to provide for the rights and duties of legal officers. Proposed
section 122B provides that a legal officer in the ADF will
discharge their professional rights, duties and obligations in
accordance with the generally accepted rights, duties and
obligations applying to legal practitioners. The purpose of this
new section is to ensure that ADF legal officers are not subject to
inappropriate command direction in the exercise of their
professional capacity as ADF legal officers. 
The transitional provisions in items 1
-7 of Schedule 8 operate so that:
any service offence committed
any act or omission that took place
any charge that was laid or any action taken in
respect of that charge, and
any proceedings commenced and not finalised
(including proceedings before an examining officer)
under the old law will continue to be dealt with
under that law until completed.
Back to top
There have been a number of formal inquiries
since 1997 into the administration of justice within the ADF. Many
made suggestions for improvements to the military justice system.
Some of those suggestions were acted upon and some were not. By the
time the 2003 Committee published its report in June 2005, it
acknowledged that for 10 years now, there have been increasing
calls from servicemen and women and their families that all is not
well in the military justice system. 
That report contains significant criticisms of
the existing disciplinary system as follows:
Evidence to the committee cast considerable
doubt over the impartiality of current structures, and argued that
Service personnel's rights to access fair and independent tribunals
are under threat It is apparent that Australia's disciplinary
system is not striking the right balance between the needs of a
functional Defence Force and Service members' rights, to the
detriment of both.
reform is also needed to impart greater independence and
impartiality into summary proceedings. Summary proceedings affect
the highest proportion of military personnel. The current system
for prosecuting summary offences, however, suffers from a greater
lack of independence than courts martial and Defence Force
Magistrate processes. The committee therefore recommends an
expansion of the right to elect trial by court martial before the
permanent military court, and the introduction of the right to
appeal summary decisions before the independent permanent military
The 2003 Committee made 40 recommendations for
change. 30 of the 40 were accepted in whole or in part by the
Government. This Bill is a direct response to those
recommendations, particularly recommendation 23 and to the above
comments about the need for reform of summary proceedings. The Bill
contains core initiatives such as:
an automatic right to appeal on conviction or
punishment from a summary authority to a single Military Judge of
the Military Judge has a statutory discretion
to deal with an appeal on its merits by way of fresh trial or on
following the appeal process a Military Judge
will not be able to impose a punishment greater than the maximum
punishment that was available to the summary authority at the
- the right to elect trial by a Military Judge of the AMC for all
but a limited number of certain disciplinary offences (Schedule 1A
additional safeguards such as a requirement for
summary authorities to offer a right of election if, prior to
making a finding of guilt, they determine that the more severe
punishments that are available to them might apply
simplified rules of evidence
a review regime in respect of technical errors
related to the awarding of punishment and orders and
changes to certain offences and
The 2003 Committee stated in its report of
2005 that it believes that the military justice system in its
current form clearly needs a comprehensive, ground up reform .
 This Bill
delivers that ground up reform.
On 16 August 2007, the Senate referred the
provisions of the Bill to the 2007 Committee for inquiry and
As already stated there was some criticism to
the 2007 Committee by way of written and oral submissions by the
Law Council of Australia about the absence in the Bill of a right
for the prosecution to appeal interlocutory points in an appeal
from a summary conviction. In addition, Mr Willee on his own behalf
made oral submissions, critical of the simplification of the rules
of evidence in summary trials.
By contrast, the Bill has been fully supported
by each of the arms of the ADF. Written and oral submissions
endorsed the Bill on the grounds that its terms have been drafted
after considerable consultation with those parties who will be most
affected by it.
The 2007 Committee report was published on 10
September 2007. Whilst its final recommendation was that the Bill
be passed, the 2007 Committee also recommended that:
the Government make amendments to section 146A
(about the simplified rules of evidence at a summary trial) so that
the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness which
underpin the rules of evidence must be complied with, 
the Government undertake a comprehensive
consultation process on any future proposed legislation that is
intended to make significant changes to Australia s military
justice system. 
The Bill delivers on the recommendations of
the 2003 Committee report. It creates a new system with many built
in safeguards. There is a system of review and appeal which, on its
face, should deliver outcomes that are fair, informal and timely.
However, the simplification of the rules of evidence is an issue.
The transcript of the hearings by the 2007 Committee shows the
following interaction between one of the members of the 2007
Committee and Mr Geoff Early, Inspector General, Australian Defence
Force, Department of Defence which cuts to the heart of the
Senator MARK BISHOP
What is the
breakdown in the system that is so extraordinary that persuades you
that DLAB07 should take away the rules of evidence in summary
matters? What has occurred in the last one, two or four years to
overturn that 30 or 40 years of history that Mr Willee referred to?
Mr Earley It is mainly that it was never really
able to be applied to its full extent in the way that might have
been imagined back in 1985. There is the training burden to raise
to a certain level people who are involved in administering this.
We are simply not capable of producing people with enough knowledge
to apply that to its fullest extent in the sense that a lawyer
might be able to. The ADF is looking to try to improve the system
to the benefit of its administration so that there will be less
work around and at the same time enhance and protect the rights of
the individuals who are subjected to it. 
The ADF has asked for simpler rules of
evidence and they have been delivered, despite the concerns of the
Law Council and the 2007 Committee. However, a system is only as
good as those persons who administer it. The Bill proposes
legislative change. It is now up to the ADF to do its part.
Implementation of the Bill will require
cultural change. The simplification of the rules of evidence does
not mean that no evidence is required, rather that evidence will be
weighed and analysed and even disregarded if it is unreliable. It
will be up the ADF to put in place sufficient training to ensure
that those who operate as a summary authority understand that.
The Bill does not contain any provisions which
would require a review of the amendments within a specified time
frame. The Bill puts in place many of broad changes recommended by
the 2003 Committee. Given the scope of those changes, a timely
review would be prudent.
Back to top
. General Peter
Cosgrove, quoted in the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade
References Committee report, The Effectiveness of Australia s
Military Justice system , Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, p.
. There were the
death of Private Jeremy Williams, who committed suicide during
training at the School of Infantry in 2003; the 1998 fire on board
HMAS Westralia, in which four sailors were killed; the suspension
and suicide of Cadet Sergeant Eleanore Tibble, Air Training Corps,
in 2000; allegations of misconduct by members of the Special Air
Service in East Timor in 1999; and the disappearance at sea of
Acting Leading Seaman Cameron Gurr, HMAS Darwin, in May 2002.
. Senate Foreign
Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee, op. cit., p.
. For a rundown of
the findings, see ibid., pp. xxi-xxiv.
. Department of
Defence, Government Response to the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence
and Trade References Committee, Report on the Effectiveness of
Australia s Military Justice System , Canberra, 5 October 2005.
. R. C. Smith AO,
PSM, Secretary, Department of Defence, and Air Chief Marshal A. G.
Houston AO, AFC, Chief of the Defence Force, Year in Review , in
Department of Defence, Annual Report 2003-05, Canberra, 2005, p.
. Andrew D
Mitchell and Tania Voon, Justice at the sharp end improving
Australia s Military Justice System , UNSW Law Journal,
Vol. 28:2, 2005, p. 396.
. Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References
Committee, op. cit., pp. 10 11.
. Explanatory Memorandum, p. 2.
. The 2007 Committee reported on 10 September 2007.
Recommendations made in the report are discussed in the Conclusion
section of this digest.
. Office of the
Director of Military Prosecutions, Submission No. 7, p.
. Law Council of Australia, Submission No. 8,
. The Territory
was acquired by the Commonwealth from the State of New South Wales
in 1915 so that the national seat of government (Canberra ACT)
would have access to the sea. The
Jervis Bay Territory Acceptance Act 1915 and Jervis
Bay Territory Ordinances made by the Governor-General are
administered by the Commonwealth Minister for Regional Services
Territories and Local Government.
Commonwealth of Australia v Westwood  FCA 1283,
. Evidence in
proceedings before a summary authority.
. Evidence in
appeal proceedings before the AMC which arise from a decision by a
Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee, op. cit.,
. According to
the Report on Unproclaimed Legislation dated August 2007
which was prepared in accordance with Senate standing order 139(2),
the delay is due to the need to amend Defence subordinate
legislation and to formulate rules and procedures. Those schedules
of the 2006 Amendment Act which are not yet in force will come into
force on 1 October 2007.
. Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References
Committee, op. cit., p. 12.
. Also defined in section 3 of the DFDA as a superior
summary authority appointed under section 5A.
. Also defined in section 3 of the DFDA as a subordinate
summary authority appointed under subsection 105(2).
. Inspector General Australian Defence Force,
Submission No. 1, p. 1.
. For example, an officer of or below the rank of
major-general but above the rank of major.
. Where a
member of the ADF is on deployment or subject to communication
blackout immediate access to legal advice may not be available. It
may be that telephone or email advice is subject to delay due to
Defence Headquarters, Submission No 4, p. 1.
Memorandum, p. 15.
punishment is defined in section 3 of the DFDA as a punishment set
out in column 2 of Table A or B in Schedule 3. These include fines,
reduction in rank, forfeiture of seniority or detention.
. Explanatory Memorandum, p. 17.
. This definition mirrors the terms of subsection 66(2)
of the DFDA which is located in Part IV Punishments and orders.
. Explanatory Memorandum, p. 19.
. Evidence of P. Willee QC, Public Hearing before
Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and
Trade, 5 September 2007, p. 2.
. Neil Rees, Procedure and evidence in court substitute
tribunals , Australian Bar Review (2006) vol 28, number 1,
. Explanatory Memorandum, p. 19.
. Evidence of P. Willee QC, p. 2.
. Explanatory Memorandum, p. 8.
. Evidence of Rear Admiral Bonser, Public Hearing
before Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and
Trade, 5 September 2007, p. 12.
. Criminal Law Policy Section, Criminal Justice
Division, Attorney-General s Department, Guide to Framing
Commonwealth Offences, Civil Penalties and Enforcement Powers
, February 2004, p. 27.
. Explanatory Memorandum, p. 28.
. Office of the Director of Military Prosecutions, op.
cit., p. 1.
. Explanatory Memorandum, p. 28.
. According to the Explanatory Memorandum this will have
the effect of increasing the jurisdiction of a discipline officer
to deal with a matter in respect of an officer of or below the
naval rank of Lieutenant, Captain in the Army and Flight Lieutenant
in the Air Force,
. Explanatory Memorandum, p. 30.
. The 2006 Amendment Act will insert a definition of the
term class 3 offence at section 3(1) of the DFDA. A class 3 offence
will be specified in the table in clause 1 of Schedule 7 of the
. Office of the Director of Military Prosecutions, op.
cit., p. 1.
. Explanatory Memorandum, p. 33.
. Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References
Committee, op. cit., xlix.
Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, Defence
Legislation Amendment Bill 2007 [Provisions] , Canberra, September
. Evidence of G. Early, Public Hearing before Senate
Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, 5
September 2007, p. 20.
Law and Bills Digest Section
12 September 2007
© Commonwealth of Australia
This work is copyright. Except to the extent of uses permitted
by the Copyright Act 1968, no person may reproduce or transmit any
part of this work by any process without the prior written consent
of the Parliamentary Librarian. This requirement does not apply to
members of the Parliament of Australia acting in the course of
their official duties.
This work has been prepared to support the work of the Australian
Parliament using information available at the time of production.
The views expressed do not reflect an official position of the
Parliamentary Library, nor do they constitute professional legal
Feedback is welcome and may be provided to: firstname.lastname@example.org. Any
concerns or complaints should be directed to the Parliamentary
Librarian. Parliamentary Library staff are available to discuss the
contents of publications with Senators and Members and their staff.
To access this service, clients may contact the author or the
Library’s Central Entry Point for referral.
Back to top