Bills Digest no. 73 2014–15
PDF version [681KB]
WARNING: 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 Bill.
Paula Pyburne
Law and Bills Digest Section
11 February 2015
Contents
Purpose of the Bill
Background
Committee consideration
Statement of Compatibility with Human Rights
Policy position of non-government parties/independents
Position of major interest groups
Financial implications
Key issues and provisions
Conclusion
Appendix 1
Date introduced: 3 December 2014
House: The Senate
Portfolio: Defence
Commencement: Sections 1–3 on Royal Assent; Schedule 1 on the 28th day after Royal Assent.
Links: The links to the Bill, its Explanatory Memorandum and second reading speech can be found on the Bill’s home page, or through the Australian Parliament website.
When Bills have been passed and have received Royal Assent, they become Acts, which can be found at the ComLaw website.
The purpose of the Defence Legislation Amendment (Military Justice Enhancements—Inspector-General ADF) Bill 2014 (the Bill) is to amend the Defence Act 1903[1] to:
- expand the role of the Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force (Inspector-General) as the single internal review mechanism with Defence by:
– re-allocating responsibility for investigation of Service-related deaths to the Inspector-General and
– re-allocate the management of the Australian Defence Force (ADF) redress of grievance process to the Inspector-General
- enhance the independence of the Inspector-General.
Nature of military justice
The military 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 Defence Force Discipline Act 1982[2] and (administrative) maintenance of professional standards in the Australian Defence Force (ADF) and investigation of certain occurrences:
The administrative system is not an alternative to the discipline system. It deals with a different class of occurrence or wrongdoing within the defence forces. The intention is to ensure that the expected standards of professional judgement, command and leadership are maintained for the purpose of operational effectiveness. The administrative system enables the ADF to take action against a member or members whose professional conduct falls below the standard (while not having committed an offence), and the options for action include counselling, formal warnings, censures, removal from command, and discharge from the service.[3]
Office of the Inspector-General
‘Failures in the military justice system ... not only soon become publicly known, but if not properly dealt with, can quickly result in damage to reputation, morale and ultimately, operational effectiveness’.[4]
In his Report of an Inquiry into Military Justice in the Australian Defence Force, July 2001, Mr Burchett QC recommended that a Military Inspector-General be appointed to provide the Chief of the Defence Force with constant scrutiny of the military justice system, independent of the ordinary chain of command.[5]
To this end, the Defence Legislation Amendment Act (No. 2) 2005 inserted a new Part VIIIB into the Defence Act to establish and set out the functions of the Inspector‑General of the Australian Defence Force.[6] The functions of the Inspector-General are:
- to inquire into or investigate matters concerning the military justice system
- to conduct performance reviews of the military justice system, including internal audits, at the times and in the manner the Inspector-General considers appropriate
- to advise on matters concerning the military justice system, including making recommendations for improvements
- to promote military justice values across the Defence Force and
- to do anything incidental or conducive to the performance of any of the preceding functions.[7]
In addition, the Inspector-General undertakes inquiries in accordance with the provisions of Part VII of the Defence (Inquiry) Regulations 1985, at the direction of the Chief of the Defence Force, at the request of a service chief or if he, or she, decides that it is appropriate to inquire into a matter.[8]
In a speech delivered in 2008, the Inspector-General ADF, Mr Geoff Earley AM noted that:
... complaints that come to IGADF for inquiry require active formal inquiries involving personal contact with witnesses [which is] very much assisted by the IGADF being located within the Defence Organisation.
Independence of action, and the perception of independence, are obviously important features of any “watchdog” role. Mere independence though is not, of itself, necessarily a guarantor of an effective outcome ... The structural positioning of the IGADF as an entity independent of the normal chain of command but within the broader Defence umbrella as recommended by Mr Burchett has, in my view, proven to be effective. I might also add that I have never been given any occasion to believe that my independence of action to carry out my role was being impeded or that any particular outcome was sought or expected.[9]
Rethinking systems of inquiry, investigation, review and audit
On 11 April 2011 the Minister for Defence, Stephen Smith, announced a suite of reviews into aspects of the culture of the ADF. The need for these reviews arose from an incident at the Australian Defence Force Academy which became commonly known as the ADFA Skype incident.[10] The Minister went on to say:
It is essential that the ADF and Defence promotes and enforces the highest standards of behaviour and creates an environment where complaints can be aired and appropriately addressed. I have therefore asked the independent Inspector‑General of the Australian Defence Force to conduct a review of the management of incidents and complaints in Defence with specific reference to the treatment of victims, transparency of processes and the jurisdictional interface between military and civil law, which may lead to untimely decision making processes.[11]
The findings of the Inspector-General’s independent inquiry, those of the other inquiries arising from the ADFA Skype incident, along with recommendations arising out of the HMAS Success Commission of Inquiry conducted by Roger Gyles AO QC form the basis for the amendments in the Bill.[12]
Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee
The Bill has been referred to the Senate Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee (the Committee) for inquiry and report by 3 March 2015.[13] Comments of submitters to the Committee are canvassed under the heading ‘Key issues and provisions’, below.
Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills
At the time of writing this Bills Digest, the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills had not made any comments in relation to the Bill.
Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights
At the time of writing this Bills Digest, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights had not made any comments in relation to the Bill.
As required under Part 3 of the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011 (Cth), the Government has assessed the Bill’s compatibility with the human rights and freedoms recognised or declared in the international instruments listed in section 3 of that Act.[14] The Government acknowledges that the Bill engages the following:
- Article 7 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social And Cultural Rights[15] by providing access by Defence Force personnel to a statutorily independent person for investigating or inquiring into flaws and failures of the military justice system[16] and
- Article 14(1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights[17] which requires that people enjoy a fair hearing of any criminal charges against them and of their rights and obligations in a suit at law.[18]
The Government considers that the Bill is compatible.
At the time of writing this Bills Digest no public comments had been about the measures in the Bill by members of non-government parties or independents.
The Bill has been welcomed by the Inspector-General[19] and members of the Centre for Military and Security Law based at the Australian National University.[20] The Commonwealth Ombudsman gave the Bill a qualified endorsement.[21] Relevant comments are canvassed under the heading ‘Key issues and provisions’, below.
According to the Explanatory Memorandum accompanying the Bill, ‘no additional funding requirement has been identified. Where necessary, reallocation of extant Departmental resources will occur’.[22]
Part VIIIB of the Defence Act sets out the establishment and functions of the Inspector-General of the ADF.
Objects of Part VIIIB
Items 1 and 2 of the Bill amend section 110A of the Defence Act which contains the objects of Part VIIIB. The amendments operate to make clear that the Inspector-General is to provide the Chief of the Defence Force with:
- a mechanism to audit and review the military justice system which is independent of the ordinary chain of command and
- an avenue, also independent of the ordinary chain of command, by which failures and flaws in the military justice system can be identified, examined and remedied.
The Defence (Inquiry) Regulations 1985[23] outline the powers and procedures associated with an inquiry by the Inspector-General.
Updated functions of the Inspector-General ADF
Existing section 110C of the Defence Act sets out the functions of the Inspector-General.
Item 3 of the Bill repeals paragraph 110C(1)(e) and substitutes proposed paragraphs 110C(1)(e)-(j). The amendment consolidates existing functions as well as providing for new functions.[24] The amendments operate so that first, the Inspector-General must inquire into, or investigate, a matter concerning the Defence Force, if directed by the Minister or the Chief of Defence Force to do so.[25] Second, the Inspector-General has such functions as are prescribed by regulations,[26] or conferred under the Defence Act[27] or any other law of the Commonwealth.[28] Third, the terms of existing paragraph 110C(1)(e) are replicated in proposed paragraph 110C(1)(j), providing the Inspector-General with the ability to do anything incidental or conducive to the performance of his or her other functions.
Item 4 of the Bill repeals subsection 110C(2) of the Defence Act. The additional functions of the Inspector‑General which are currently listed in that subsection take the form given in proposed paragraphs 110C(1)(g)–(i).
Item 5 of the Bill inserts proposed subsections 110C(4)-(6) into the Defence Act. The proposed subsections operate to limit the power of the Inspector-General to undertake ‘such functions as are prescribed by the regulations’.[29] The regulations made for the purposes of proposed paragraph 110C(1)(g) must not prescribe a function unless the function relates to one of the following:
- the military justice system
- complaints made by members of the Defence Force, where the relevant complaint is about a decision, act or omission in relation to the member’s service in the Defence Force or
- deaths of members of the Defence Force, where the relevant death appears to have arisen out of, or in the course of, the member’s service in the Defence Force.
According to the submission to the Committee by the Inspector-General this will ‘consolidate arrangements which were effected administratively in July [2014] to transfer responsibility for inquiries into Service-related deaths and the internal review of Australia Defence Force members’ complaints to my office’.[30]
Key issue—redress of grievance process
The rationale for the redress of grievance process (ROG) is summarised by Roger Gyles AO QC as follows:
The obligation of a member of the Defence Force to obey lawful orders given by a superior officer and to comply with a lawful general order is crucial to the operation of command of a disciplined service. A correlative of that obligation is that, if a member of the Defence Force considers that a decision, act or omission in relation to the member's service is adverse or detrimental to him or her and the adverse or detrimental effect of that decision, act or omission is capable of being redressed by (among others) a member of the Defence Force, the member may make a complaint under Part IV of the Defence Force Regulations 1952 for redress of grievance.[31]
The HMAS Success Commission of Inquiry identified that the ROG process in that case, ‘produced inappropriate results’ and recommended that ‘the interplay between the redress of grievance system and alternative avenues for redress be examined and rationalised.[32] The Bill does this. The ROG process will be undertaken by the Inspector‑General. In addition, the Bill ‘will enable regulations to remove provisions that allow commissioned and warranted Australian Defence Force officers to seek a second review by Chief of Defence Force’.[33] ‘A member dissatisfied with the outcome of this internal review would retain their existing rights to seek external review, such as from the Defence Force Ombudsman’.[34]
Conduct of investigation or inquiry
Currently section 110D of the Defence Act prescribes the circumstances in which the Inspector-General can conduct inquiries or investigations. Item 6 of the Bill repeals the section. In its place, item 7 of the Bill inserts proposed sections 110DA and 110DB.
Proposed section 110DA of the Defence Act relates to an action by the Inspector-General which is undertaken to inquire into or investigate matters concerning the military justice system[35] or subject to regulations that have been made for the purposes of paragraph 110C(1)(g) of the Defence Act. In these circumstances, the conduct of the inquiry or investigation may be on the Inspector-General’s own initiative, at the request of a Service chief or at the request of an individual.
Proposed section 110DB of the Defence Act provides that, generally, the Inspector-General may end an inquiry or investigation that is being conducted if he, or she, is satisfied that the inquiry or investigation, or the continuation of the inquiry or investigation, is not warranted having regard to all the circumstances. Proposed subsection 110DB(2) provides an exception to the general rule where the inquiry or investigation is one which the Inspector-General was directed by the Minister to undertake.[36]
The rationale for these amendments appears to arise from the report of the Review of allegations of sexual and other abuse in Defence which states:
It would seem possible for the IGADF to inquire into the past receipt and investigation of allegations of abuse, including the manner in which any complaints have been dealt with. The IGADF has wide powers under the Defence (Inquiry) Regulations 1985 to obtain evidence and compel the attendance of witnesses.
It is questionable, without an amendment of the legislation, whether the IGADF could receive initial complaints of abuse and investigate them.[37]
Whilst proposed paragraph 110DA(2)(c) will remedy that defect, the report of the Review of allegations of sexual and other abuse in Defence makes the point that:
There may also be a question whether members and former members would wish to have their matter investigated by the IGADF. While notionally independent of the ADF, the IGADF is accountable to the [Chief of the Defence Force] CDF. The Inspector-General is a former senior ADF member and the office is largely staffed by ADF members. Many people who have raised matters with the Review have not previously raised their matter with Defence. The IGADF may be seen by many to be too much “a part of the ADF”.[38]
Reporting requirements
The Inspector-General’s existing reporting requirements go to the heart of the independence of the position. The Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade (the 2008 Senate Committee) considered those requirements in its fourth progress report into the Review of Australia’s Military Justice System.[39] The 2008 Senate Committee noted that the Inspector-General is a statutory appointment but, unlike the Chief Military Justice, Judge Advocate General and Director of Military Prosecutions, is not required to report separately to the Parliament. The 2008 Committee interpreted the provisions setting out the object of Part VIIIB of the Defence Act and the Inspector-General’s limited reporting obligations as an indicator that:
... the independence of the IGADF is curtailed. While the IGADF is to provide the CDF with a mechanism for internal audit and review independent of the ordinary chain of command, his reporting obligations are nonetheless confined within the chain of command. Clearly, the intention of the legislation is to make the IGADF a key advisor to the CDF without any obligations to make public or inform the parliament about his findings or any recommendations on the military justice system.
In its 2005 report, the committee argued that a reporting regime that is transparent and promotes accountability would greatly improve the perceived independence of the Office of the IGADF. It noted, however, that there does not appear to be any adequate avenue for the IGADF to air his or her concerns about the military justice system to any authority other than the CDF.[40]
The 2008 Senate Committee concluded that unlike the Chief Military Justice and the Director of Military Prosecutions, the Inspector-General is ‘too closely associated with the chain of command to be seen to provide independent oversight of the military justice system’.[41]
The Bill addresses these concerns by ensuring that the Inspector-General reports directly to the Parliament.
At present the Inspector-General is required to prepare and provide reports to the Chief of Defence Force as directed. Item 8 of the Bill repeals and replaces section 110R which sets out those informal reporting requirements. Proposed section 110R of the Defence Act creates formal reporting requirements so that the Inspector-General must prepare and give to the Minister a report of his, or her, operations during the financial year.[42] The report is to be given as soon as practicable after the end of each financial year. Under section 34C of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 this means that the report is to be provided to the Minister within six months after the end of the relevant financial year. In addition the Minister is to ensure that a copy of the Inspector‑General ADF’s report is laid before each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the day on which he, or she, receives the report.[43]
Amended regulation-making power
Section 124 of the Defence Act contains broad regulation-making powers, including, amongst other things a power for the Governor-General to make regulations in relation to the procedures, powers and reporting obligations of the Inspector-General ADF in respect of the performance of the Inspector-General ADF’s functions, including in relation to any matter connected with inquiries, investigations and performance reviews.[44]
Item 9 of the Bill inserts proposed subsections 124(2AA) and (2AB) to clarify that the regulation-making power includes the power to make regulations requiring a person appearing as a witness before the Inspector-General or a person appointed by him, or her, under section 110P of the Defence Act to answer a question, even if the answer to the question may tend to incriminate the person.
The rationale for the amendment is set out in the submission to the Committee by the Centre for Military and Security Law. The submission notes the increasingly joint nature of ADF operations and military service stating:
It is now quite normal for personnel from all three Services to be working together in circumstances where there are also public servants and civilian contractors performing similar functions and/or working in the same workplace ... In such a workplace, it is entirely conceivable that a complaint might be lodged (for example) by a member of the ADF that involves an allegation against another member of the ADF with evidence potentially being provided by permanent and reserve force ADF members, public servants and contractors.[45]
According to the members of the Centre for Military and Security Law the amendments in proposed subsections 124(2AA) and (2AB) are essential. Without them, the Inspector-General, and persons appointed by the Inspector-General ‘could only compel the cooperation of ADF members serving on a full-time basis in any inquiry’.[46] The proposed provisions will enhance the Inspector-General’s ability to inquire regardless of the different employment arrangements for personnel that can be found working at Defence worksites.
Importantly, item 12 of the Bill mitigates the severity of this requirement upon a witness by inserting proposed subsection 124(2CA). The subsection operates so that the statement or disclosure, the making of the statement or disclosure and any information, document or thing obtained directly or indirectly by making the statement or disclosure are not admissible in evidence against the witness in certain proceedings. Those proceedings are:
- any civil or criminal proceedings in any federal court or court of a state or territory or
- proceedings before a service tribunal.
However, they do not include proceedings by way of a prosecution for giving false testimony at the hearing before the Inspector-General or person appointed under section 110P of the Defence Act.
In addition, item 10 amends subsection 124(2B) to ensure that regulations made under proposed subsections 124(2AA) or (2AB) must not require a person to provide an answer that may incriminate him or her in respect of an offence with which the person has been charged, but which has not been finally dealt with.
Following the much publicised ADFA Skype incident the Minister for Defence commissioned a suite of reviews into a number of aspects of the culture of the ADF. Those reviews drew on the extensive reviews of the ADF which have taken place since 1994. These are listed at Appendix 1 of this Bills Digest.
This Bill amends the Defence Act in relation to the activities of the Inspector-General. In his report for the period 1 January to 31 December 2013, the Inspector-General noted:
... with increased emphasis on individual conduct and behaviour outlined in Pathway to Change: Evolving Defence Culture of 2012 there is a need to ensure that IGADF remains a viable and effective overwatch body to enable constant scrutiny and monitoring of the military justice system to ensure its health and effectiveness, and to examine and identify situations of military injustice in order to remedy them.[47]
The amendments in this Bill are a small part of the slow and progressive changes which the ADF is making.
Appendix 1
| Year |
Title |
| 1994 |
Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, Sexual harassment in the Australian Defence Force |
| 1996 |
C Burton, Women in the Australian Defence Force |
| 1996 |
K Quinn, Sexual harassment in the Australian Defence Force |
| 1997 |
Brigadier Abadee, Study into the judicial system and under the Defence Force Discipline Act[48] |
| 1998 |
BD Grey, Report of the review into policies and practices to deal with sexual harassment and sexual offences at the Australian Defence Force Academy |
| 1998 |
Defence Force Ombudsman, Own motion investigation into how the Australian Defence Force responds to allegations of serious incidents and offences |
| 1999 |
Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, Military Justice in the Australian Defence Force |
| 1999 |
Australian National Audit Office, Redress of Grievances in the Australian Defence Force |
| 2000 |
Defence Personnel Executive, Review of the Australian Defence Force Redress of Grievance System |
| 2001 |
Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, Rough Justice? An investigation into allegations of Brutality in the Army’s Parachute Battalion |
| 2001 |
JCS Burchett QC, Inquiry into military justice in the Australian Defence Force |
| 2003 |
Acumen Alliance, The Defence Legal Service Board of Inquiry Management Audit |
| 2005 |
Department of Defence and Commonwealth Ombudsman, Review of the Australian Defence Force Redress of Grievance System 2004 |
| 2005 |
Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee, The effectiveness of Australia’s military justice system |
| 2006 |
Department of Defence, Report of an Audit of the Australian Defence Force Investigative Capability |
| 2007 |
Defence Force Ombudsman, Own motion investigation into the management of unacceptable behaviour complaints in the Australian Defence Force |
| 2008 |
L Street AC KCMG QC and Air Marshall L Fisher, Report of the Independent Review on the Health of the reformed military justice system |
Source: Department of Defence, Re-thinking systems of inquiry, investigation, review and audit in Defence, Report on Stage A, Annex C—Analysis of previous relevant inquiries, accessed 4 February 2015.
Members, Senators and Parliamentary staff can obtain further information from the Parliamentary Library on (02) 6277 2500.
[1]. Defence Act 1903, accessed 13 January 2015.
[2]. Defence Force Discipline Act 1982, accessed 13 January 2015.
[3]. S Harris Rimmer and J Moremon, Defence Legislation Amendment Bill 2006, Bills digest, 48, 2006–07, Parliamentary Library, Canberra, 2006, p. 3, accessed 13 January 2015.
[4]. Explanatory Memorandum, Defence Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2005, paragraph 31, p. 16, accessed 13 January 2015.
[5]. JS Burchett QC, Report of an Inquiry into Military Justice in the Australian Defence Force, Commonwealth of Australia, 2001, recommendation 55, accessed 13 January 2015.
[6]. Defence Legislation Amendment Act (No. 2) 2005, accessed 13 January 2015.
[7]. Defence Act, section 110C.
[8]. Defence (Inquiry) Regulations 1985, regulation 81, accessed 13 January 2015.
[9]. G Earley, Administrative oversight of military justice, speech, 26 November 2008, Canberra, accessed 29 January 2015.
[10]. S Smith (Minister for Defence), Sex Discrimination Commissioner to lead review of the Australian Defence Force Academy and the Australian Defence Force, media release, 11 April 2011, accessed 15 January 2015.
[11]. Ibid. See also Inspector-General ADF, Review of the management of incidents and complaints in Defence including civilian and military jurisdiction, report, Commonwealth of Australia, 2011, accessed 4 February 2015.
[12]. R Gyles AO QC, HMAS Success Commission of Inquiry: allegations of unacceptable behaviour and management thereof, report, Commonwealth of Australia, January 2011, accessed 4 February 2015.
[13]. Details of the terms of reference, the submissions to the Committee and the final report (when published) are on the inquiry homepage, accessed 13 January 2015.
[14]. The Statement of Compatibility with Human Rights can be found at page 3 of the Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill, accessed 5 February 2015.
[15]. International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights done at New York on 16 December 1966 [1976] ATS 5 (entered into force in Australia 10 March 1976), accessed 4 February 2015.
[16]. The Statement of Compatibility with Human Rights, op. cit., p. 3.
[17]. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights done at New York on 16 December 1966 [1980] ATS 23 (entered into force in Australia 13 November 1980), accessed 4 February 2015.
[18]. The Statement of Compatibility with Human Rights, op. cit., p. 3.
[19]. G Earley, Submission to the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, Inquiry into the Defence Legislation Amendment (Military Justice Enhancements—Inspector-General ADF) Bill 2014, 28 January 2015, accessed 4 February 2015.
[20]. R McLaughlin and D Letts, Submission to the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, Inquiry into the Defence Legislation Amendment (Military Justice Enhancements—Inspector-General ADF) Bill 2014, 30 January 2015, accessed 4 February 2015.
[21]. Commonwealth and Defence Force Ombudsman, Submission to the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, Inquiry into the Defence Legislation Amendment (Military Justice Enhancements—Inspector-General ADF) Bill 2014, 2 February 2015, accessed 4 February 2015.
[22]. Explanatory Memorandum, Defence Legislation Amendment (Military Justice Enhancements—Inspector-General ADF) Bill 2014, p. 2, accessed 19 January 2015.
[23]. Defence (Inquiry) Regulations 1985, accessed 4 February 2015.
[24]. For example item 4 repeals subsection 110C(2) but the functions set out in that subsection are incorporated into the functions listed in subsection 110C(1) of the Defence Act.
[25]. Proposed paragraphs 110C(1)(e) and (f) of the Defence Act respectively.
[26]. Proposed paragraph 110C(g) of the Defence Act.
[27]. Proposed paragraph 110C(h) of the Defence Act.
[28]. Proposed paragraph 110C(i) of the Defence Act.
[29]. Proposed paragraph 110C(1)(g) of the Defence Act.
[30]. G Earley, Submission to the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, Inquiry into the Defence Legislation Amendment (Military Justice Enhancements—Inspector-General ADF) Bill 2014, op. cit.
[31]. R Gyles AO QC, HMAS Success Commission of Inquiry: allegations of unacceptable behaviour and management thereof, op. cit., Part 3, p. viii.
[32]. Ibid.
[33]. G Earley, Submission to the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, Inquiry into the Defence Legislation Amendment (Military Justice Enhancements—Inspector-General ADF) Bill 2014, op. cit., p. 2.
[34]. M Fifield (Manager of Government Business in the Senate), ‘Second reading speech: Defence Legislation Amendment (Military Justice Enhancements—Inspector-General ADF) Bill 2014’, Senate, Debates, 3 December 2014, p. 10061, accessed 4 February 2015.
[35]. Paragraph 110C(1)(a) of the Defence Act.
[36]. Proposed paragraph 110C(1)(e) of the Defence Act.
[37]. G Rumble, M McKean and D Pearce, Report of the review of allegations of sexual and other abuse in Defence, Department of Defence website, vol. 1, October 2011, p. 166, accessed 4 February 2015.
[38]. Ibid.
[39]. Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, Reforms to Australia’s military justice system, fourth progress report, Senate, Canberra, September 2008, accessed 2 February 2015.
[40]. Ibid., p. 77.
[41]. Ibid., p. 78.
[42]. The operations of the Inspector-General ADF include the operations of inquiry officers, inquiry assistants and Assistant Inspector-General of the ADF who are appointed by the Inspector-General ADF under section 110P of the Defence Act.
[43]. Acts Interpretation Act 1901, subsections 34C(2) and (3), accessed 19 January 2015.
[44]. Paragraph 124(1)(h) of the Defence Act.
[45]. R McLaughlin and D Letts, Submission to the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, Inquiry into the Defence Legislation Amendment (Military Justice Enhancements—Inspector-General ADF) Bill 2014, op. cit.
[46]. Ibid., p. 3.
[47]. Inspector-General Australian Defence Force, Report for the period 1 January to 31 December 2013, Department of Defence website, p. 6, accessed 4 February 2015.
[48]. This report has not been publicly released and so no electronic copy is available.
For copyright reasons some linked items are only available to members of Parliament.
© Commonwealth of Australia
Creative Commons
With the exception of the Commonwealth Coat of Arms, and to the extent that copyright subsists in a third party, this publication, its logo and front page design are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Australia licence.
In essence, you are free to copy and communicate this work in its current form for all non-commercial purposes, as long as you attribute the work to the author and abide by the other licence terms. The work cannot be adapted or modified in any way. Content from this publication should be attributed in the following way: Author(s), Title of publication, Series Name and No, Publisher, Date.
To the extent that copyright subsists in third party quotes it remains with the original owner and permission may be required to reuse the material.
Inquiries regarding the licence and any use of the publication are welcome to webmanager@aph.gov.au.
Disclaimer: Bills Digests are prepared to support the work of the Australian Parliament. They are produced under time and resource constraints and aim to be available in time for debate in the Chambers. The views expressed in Bills Digests do not reflect an official position of the Australian Parliamentary Library, nor do they constitute professional legal opinion. Bills Digests reflect the relevant legislation as introduced and do not canvass subsequent amendments or developments. Other sources should be consulted to determine the official status of the Bill.
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.