Chapter 2 - Annual reports by statutory and non-statutory authorities
STATUTORY AUTHORITIES
Defence portfolio
Judge Advocate General
(JAG)
2.1
The Judge Advocate General Report for the period
1 January to 31 December 2001 was tabled in the Senate on 19 August 2002.
2.2 The
office of Judge Advocate General (JAG) of the Australian Defence Force (ADF)
was created by the Defence Force Discipline Act 1982. The JAG is an
office held only by a Federal Court or a Supreme Court judge. The position has
a number of functions, including making procedural rules for service tribunals,
providing the final legal review of proceedings within the Australian Defence
Force, and, reporting upon the operation of laws relating to the discipline of
the ADF. “The JAG also playes a significant role in the promotion of the
jurisprudential welfare and education of the ADF.”[3]
2.3
The Committee notes that Major General the Hon
Justice Duggan’s appointment as JAG expired during the 2001 calendar year and
that the Hon Justice L W Roberts-Smith was appointed as acting JAG by the then
Minister, the Hon Peter Reith, MP, on 3 October 2001.
2.4
The Committee observes with interest progress of
the implementation of various findings of the Parliamentary Committee
Investigation, (“Rough Justice”) and the Military Justice Inquiry, (“The
Burchett Report”). The JAG reported that progress had been made with regard to
a review of the Defence Legal Office, now the Defence Legal Service, (TDLS).
The JAG also reported that:
- the position of an Inspector General – Australian Defence Force (Recommendation 55 of the Burchett Report) has been
created and advertised during the reporting period;
- models for a Director of Military Prosecutions
(DMP), (Recommendation 47) are being examined. A DLO team has been formed to
implement the recommendations of the Burchett Report including the
establishment of a DMP. The team is currently examining models for the DMP with
a deadline of 8 June 2002 to
produce a recommended model to the Chiefs of Service Committee;
- an improved training program on Military Justice
procedures is being developed for all Defence members, particularly Defence
Force Discipline Act officials (Recommendation 1-6)[4]
2.5 The
Committee notes the involvement of the ADF Legal Service in numerous important
areas including Fisheries Enforcement and Border Protection issues, as well as East Timor. With regard to the War on
Terrorism, the JAG reported that “the tragic events of 11 September gave rise
to numerous legal issues which required intensive consideration and factored
heavily into the planning and execution of the Australian military response.
Extremely close liaison was established between ADF Legal Officers and officers
of the Attorney-General’s Dept as well as DFAT in considering the legal status
of the conflict and the drafting of Rules of Engagement for the campaign which
were ultimately approved.”[5]
2.6 The
JAG report also contained information on the activities of the ADF Military Law
Centre and the TDLS and noted that “The academic relationship with Melbourne University entered upon a firmer footing as the administration of the Military
Law courses evolved during 2001. An exchange position with the US Centre for
Law and Military Operations (USCLAMO) has been proposed and it is hoped this
will be finalised by mid-2002.” And “In May 2001 The Defence Legal Service and the
Melbourne University Law School signed a
formal agreement for the collaborative establishment of the Asia-Pacific Centre
for Military Law.”[6]
2.7 The
report is a clearly written account of the operations and performance of the
office of the Judge Advocate General. The Committee finds that the report
fulfils all the requirements outlined in the Guidelines for statutory
bodies.
Foreign Affairs and Trade portfolio
Australia
Indonesia Institute
2.8 The
Australia Indonesia Institute Annual Report
2000-2001 was tabled in the Senate on 12 March 2002.
2.9 The
Australia Indonesia Institute was established by Order-in-Council in April
1989. The mission of the Institute is “To develop relations between Australia and Indonesia by promoting greater mutual understanding. To contribute to the
enlargement over the longer term of the areas of contact and exchange between
the people of Australia and Indonesia.”
2.10 The
Chairman, in his statement, reported that, “During 2000-2001, the Institute
held one of its tri-annual board meetings in Indonesia. An especially encouraging outcome of the Indonesia visit was the positive views expressed by interlocutors about Australia and the bilateral relationship.
This indicated to board members an ebbing of the strains that in recent years
have characterised the bilateral relationship.”[7]
2.11 The
Committee notes the continuation of the Youth and Education Program as a major
focus of the Institute. As part of its on-going educational focus, the Teacher
Exchange Program saw 22 Australian teachers placed in local schools in North Sulawesi, and 11 Indonesian teachers
commence their exchange program in Australia during the second half of 2001.
2.12 The
Institute reported that it supported an eclectic range of artistic activities
during the 2000-2001 reporting period. This included a very successful visit to
Jakarta by students of the
national Aboriginal Islander Skills Development Association, and a tour of Australia by the prominent Indonesian jazz
fusion group, Krakatau, during
October 2000.[8]
2.13 The
Committee also notes that the Institute provided sponsorship to the Indonesian
Centre for Women in Politics. The sponsorship is designed to “facilitate the
review, development and refinement of training aids relating to women’s
participation in public policy decision making.”[9]
2.14 The
Institute sponsored the first year of a planned three-year exchange program
between Australian and Indonesian health professionals, with an initial focus
on the health of mothers and babies. “In the longer term, the project is
expected to build sustainable linkages between Australian and Indonesian health
professionals and provide opportunities for cross-cultural and comparative
research projects."[10]
2.15 The
Institute’s report is clear, concise and well written. It is a well-presented
account of the Institute’s activities over the reporting period. The Committee
considers that the report meets all the guidelines for annual reports of
statutory authorities.
NON-STATUTORY
AUTHORITIES
Australia India
Council
2.16 The
Australia India Council Annual Report 2000-2001 was
tabled in the Senate on 25 June 2002.
2.17 The
Australia India Council was established by
Order-in-Council in 1992. The mission statement of the Australia India Council
is to “promote Australia’s
interests in India by
initiating and supporting activities designed to enhance awareness and
understanding between the peoples and institutions of both countries.”[11]
2.18 The
Council, at time of reporting, consisted of a Chairman, a Deputy Chair and 11
members. This is 3 less than the maximum number of members allowed under the
establishing Order-in-Council.
2.19 The
Chairman of the Council reported that, “The AIC has continued to seek an
appropriate balance between support for projects initiated by the Council
itself and projects initiated by others. The Council seeks to draw as far as
practicable on the knowledge and expertise of the broader Australian and Indian
communities.”[12]
2.20 The
Chairman reported that “The highlight of the Council’s activities during
2000-2001 was the Australia-India Disaster Management Symposium held in New Delhi in November 2000.” The symposium
brought together specialists in disaster management from a range of government
and non-government organisations, the aim of which was to “discuss how each
country deals with disasters, and to identify procedures with common benefits
for affected communities.”[13]
2.21 The
Committee commends the Council on its efforts with regard to its commerce
activities, and notes the interest in possible Australia-India partnerships in
sustainable energy. The Committee also notes the continuation of the
Australia-India Business Council exchanges.[14]
2.22 The
Committee acknowledges the on-going work of the Council in the health and
social issues fields. The Council reported on many activities in these fields
including, blood quality transfusion projects designed to reduce the incidence
of transfusion-transmitted infections, and various exchanges of health
professionals including ophthalmologists and surgeons.[15]
2.23 The
AIC Annual Report for 2000-2001 is a well produced document, which clearly
outlines the projects and activities undertaken by the Council, including their
associated costs. The Committee considers that the report meets all the
necessary requirements for reports by statutory authorities.
Australian
Submarine Corporation Pty Limited
2.24 The
Australian Submarine Corporation report for 2000-2001 was tabled in the Senate
on 12 March 2002.
2.25 The
principal activities of the Australian Submarine Corporation are “the design,
engineering and maintenance of six submarines under contract to the
Commonwealth for the Royal Australian Navy.” In addition, “subsidiaries provide
services to the parent and to the heavy engineering industry an Australia as well as other shipbuilding
operations in South-East Asia.”[16]
2.26 The
Committee notes with interest the change of ownership of the Corporation. The
Chairman’s report states, “On 3 November 2000 the Commonwealth increased its
holding in the Company from 48.5% to 100%. This occurred when Australian
Industry Development Corporation (AIDC) exercised its pre-emptive rights to do
so following Celsius AB (as the parent of the previous 49% shareholder, Kockums
Pacific Pty Ltd) becoming a subsidiary of Howaldswerke-Deutsche Werft AG (HDW)
of Germany. Concurrently the
Commonwealth purchased the minority interest in the Company held by RCI Ltd.”[17]
2.27 The
Committee recognises the considerable work undertaken by the management of the
ASC to ready the Company for private sale in order to comply with Commonwealth
policy.[18]
2.28 With
regard to the construction of the submarines under contract, the Committee
notes that the ASC completed submarines 04 & 05 and they were delivered to
the Royal Australian Navy as HMAS DECHAINEUX, (25 July 2000) and HMAS SHEEAN,
(21 August 2001) respectively.[19]
2.29 Other
operational aspects of the ASC included, “maintenance support for the
submarines at various Australian ports, at Pearl
Harbour, Hawaii and ports in Asia.
Work commenced in Adelaide on
the first full cycle docking (FCD) for HMAS Collins.
2.30 The
Committee believes the report gives a true and accurate overview of the
operations and functions of the Australian Submarine Corporation. The Committee
considers that the report meets all the obligations required of it.
Sandy Macdonald
Chair
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents
Back to top