Chapter 1 - Annual reports of statutory and non–statutory authorities and government companies
Defence portfolio
The Defence
Force Retirement and Death Benefits Authority
1.2
The Defence Force
Retirement and Death Benefits Authority Annual Report 2003–2004 was tabled
in the Senate on 8 February 2005. The report is submitted in accordance with
section 16(1) of the Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Act 1973.
1.3
The Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Authority (DFRDB) came
into operation on 1 October 1972 under the Defence Force Retirement and
Death Benefits Act 1973. It is a fully defined unfunded superannuation
scheme which is governed by the DFRDB Authority. Although closed to new members
in 1991, the scheme continues to provide benefits for existing members.
Day–to–day administration is provided by ComSuper. The compliance index flags
the functions and responsibilities undertaken by ComSuper as part of their
administration of DFRDB. The reporting requirements met by ComSuper are covered
in the Commissioner for Superannuation Annual Report 2003–2004.[1]
1.4
The Committee notes that in September 2003 the Authority considered a
report from ComSuper which examined the efficiency and effectiveness of the
systems and procedures used by it in the administration of the DFRDB Scheme. The
Authority considered that:
ComSuper had delivered good quality superannuation services, and
was effective in terms of timeliness, cost and client satisfaction. The
Authority endorsed higher standards of service for reconsideration requests and
introduced additional standards for family law requests and entered into a revised
Agreement on Services and standards with ComSuper.[2]
1.5
During 2003–2004 Comsuper continued to conduct client satisfaction
surveys with the assistance of the Canberra–based firm Orima Research. Two
separate surveys were conducted during the year. In addition, the Quality
Service Index (QSI) for military clients continues to be used to measure the
survey results and to enable comparison between survey periods. The Authority
was pleased with the positive feedback obtained from clients on the quality of
services received.
1.6
In the previous Annual Report, details were provided of the
implementation of the new CAPITAL system which was being developed for military
schemes administration. In 2003–2004, bedding in of the system continued and
functional enhancements were implemented. The Authority considers that the
system now provides an effective platform for the administration of the
military schemes and payment system for pensions.
1.7
Throughout the report the Authority has again used a table format to
evaluate its client services. The Committee considers this report to be a
well–written and easy to use. It informs the reader of the organisation’s
financial management aspects and the many client focussed operations.[3]
1.8
Although a statutory body, the Authority aims to comply, where
applicable, with the Requirements for Department Annual Reports. The Committee
finds that this report complies with all requirements outlined in the Guidelines
(1982) for statutory bodies.
Judge Advocate General
1.9
The Judge Advocate General Report for the period 1 January to 31 December 2004 was tabled in the Senate on 14 June 2005.
1.10
The office of Judge Advocate General (JAG) of the Australian Defence
Force (ADF) is a statutory body created under 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 has a
significant role in the promotion of the jurisprudential welfare and education
of the ADF’.[4]
1.11
Section 196A of the DFDA requires the JAG to prepare and provide to the
Minister for Defence a report relating to the operation of the DFDA, the
regulations and rules of procedure made under it, and the operation of any
other law of the Commonwealth or ACT, in so far as that law relates to the
discipline of the Defence force.
Overview of the JAG Report
1.12
The 2004 report began with an overview of the JAG's position in the
military justice system, and the functions of members of his office. The report
then provided information about the JAG's contribution to the Senate Foreign
Affairs, Defence and Trade Reference Committee's inquiry into the effectiveness
of Australia's military justice system. The JAG indicated that he had raised
for the committee's consideration whether a standing military court should be
established.
1.13
The JAG provided an account of his overseas visits, his meetings and
discussions with British, Canadian and American colleagues, and his
observations of the considerable changes to overseas military justice systems.
The JAG stated:
Those meetings and discussions confirmed my view that the
current structural arrangements under the DFDA do not fully reflect the
considerable body of law that has developed overseas with regard to the
perceived ability of Service tribunals to provide a fair and impartial trial.[5]
1.14
The JAG report goes on to discuss areas in overseas jurisdictions that
contrast with current Australian structures and processes. He discussed the
benefits these new structures have had for their relevant jurisdictions, and
suggested the adoption of many of them in the Australian context.
1.15
The first 'key initiative' discussed by the JAG was the alteration of
military judiciaries to imbue them with 'genuine independence consistent with that
found in the civil courts'.[6]
The JAG asserted that safeguards for independence should include security of
tenure, security of salary and independence from command influence. The JAG
noted that the current renewable tenure of Judge Advocates and Defence Force
Magistrates (DFM) gives rise to 'the perception that an officer might tailor
his or her decisions so as to secure renewal'.[7]
He further suggested that salaries and allowances should be fixed by the Commonwealth
Remuneration Tribunal.
1.16
The JAG also discussed the creation of a Standing Military Court and
identified a number of benefits. He noted that a Standing Court would:
- permit the independent military judiciary to take control of
search warrants;
- deal with bail applications (in lieu of existing command based
review of custody); and
- facilitate the issue of rules of court governing procedural
matters, including the conduct of pre–trial directions hearings.
1.17
He further stated that a Standing Court would overcome a significant
anomaly in the current system whereby military tribunals are unable to enforce
some types of orders relating to the imprisonment of offenders.[8]
1.18
The JAG envisaged that a Standing Court would comprise three permanent
military judges and a number of part time appointments. He outlined a number of
advantages that would arise through the creation of a Standing Court staffed by
both permanent and part time appointments.
1.19
The JAG considered the structure and function of Courts Martial and made
the observation that:
Because of the command arrangements, and competition for
promotion, there will always be difficulties with the perception of
independence and impartiality of the president and members of the court
martial.[9]
1.20
He suggested that these difficulties could be resolved by amending
current structures to allow the independent Judge Advocate to preside. Further:
The genuine independence of the JA [Judge Advocate] will itself
provide a significant assurance of impartiality and independence for the
tribunal as a whole. This is largely lost if the president presides.[10]
1.21
The JAG also suggested that Judges should sentence offenders and provide
formal reasons. In his view, this would increase consistency, and add to
transparency and accountability.
1.22
The JAG asserted that there is very little that can be done to imbue
summary trials with greater independence and transparency. He considered,
however, that an automatic right of election for trial by court martial or DFM
could be an option.[11]
He noted that legislation has still not been created to:
- establish the statutorily independent positions of Director of
Military Prosecutions (DMP) and Registrar of Military Justice (RMJ); and
- fix the remuneration of the Chief Judge Advocate (CJA), RMJ and
DMP.[12]
1.23
These arrangements are part of an ongoing modernisation process designed
to take into account developments in the law both in Australia and abroad. The
JAG drew attention to the four–year delay in enacting the necessary legislative
changes, stating 'it is regrettable that they could not be introduced into
parliament during 2004'.[13]
1.24
The JAG commented at length on the operation of the office of the DMP.
He noted that a lack of resources and higher than expected workloads resulted
in delays in bringing matters to trial. The JAG noted the administrative
processes established to streamline the case–referral process, and the
additional prosecutors assigned to the office. He expected these measures
should reduce delay. The JAG also referred to the need for more advocacy
training and forensic practise for legal officers assigned to the office of the
DMP.[14]
1.25
With regard to the provision of Defence Counsel Services to accused
members, the JAG noted that the minister should examine the option of
introducing a trial defence service, independent of the Chain of Command, and
akin to the current system in Canada and the USA. The JAG also suggested a more
strategic succession plan for the office of the CJA, and an alteration to the
CJA and DMP's rank and remuneration.[15]
1.26
The JAG outlined the progress of the case flow management procedures,
previously discussed in his 2002 and 2003 reports. He stated that problems with
personnel awareness and training, software implementation, and timeliness of
data entry and integrity have been overcome. The JAG was pleased to report that
the ADF now operates a reliable discipline case flow management and tracking
system.[16]
1.27
The JAG also reported that an administrative inquiry tracking system has
been contracted out to a private software developer, and was in the process of
being created and implemented. The system should be fully operational by 1 March 2005. Once introduced, the RMJ will hand full responsibility for the system over
to the Inspector General—ADF.[17]
1.28
The JAG reported that during 2004, the office was physically relocated,
and is now separate from the broader Defence legal office. The JAG also
conducted a review of the Judge Advocate/DFM Panels, and oversaw work
undertaken to update the Discipline Law Manual. The JAG stated that the revised
Discipline Law Manual was expected for release in early to mid 2005, and
included provision for the giving of reasons in Summary Authority decisions.[18]
1.29
Training has also been provided in discipline law for both non-legally
trained ADF members and ADF legal officers. The JAG noted that this training
should hopefully lead to a reduction in errors of judgement regarding the
appropriate conduct of disciplinary matters.[19]
1.30
The JAG outlined his intention to provide explanations of various
aspects of the DFDA, with the aim of informing public debate. The current report
gives an overview of the general procedure for a trial by court martial and
DFM.[20]
1.31
The JAG concluded his report by noting that the military justice system
is undergoing significant structural reform. He stated that the biggest
impediment to the process is delay in effective legislative amendments. He
stated:
I am confident that the improvements being implemented, and the
recommendations for improvement being considered, will give the ADF a military
justice system with safeguards and transparency comparable with those offered
by the systems of our principal common law allies and by the civil courts.[21]
1.32
He noted that the changes must be monitored, considered, and where
appropriate, adopted.
The committee's assessment of the
report
1.33
Insofar as the JAG report identified a number of shortcomings in the
current military justice system, and made a number of suggestions for
improvement, the committee considers that the report is an invaluable tool for
providing independent and expert systemic insight into the operation of the
military justice system.
1.34
The committee considers that the JAG's statutory independence provides
an effective mechanism for making the types of observations and recommendations
contained in this report. The statutory position of the JAG's office—outside
the military chain of command—provides the greatest possible guarantee of
impartiality and independence. This report is an example of how independence
and impartiality can improve the overall function and accountability of the
military justice system. The committee welcomes and endorses the JAG's
proactive stance in suggesting improvements to the military justice system, and
also welcomes the JAG's initiative of providing public information regarding
the operation of particular aspects of the military justice system.
1.35
The report is a well–written and clearly–understandable account of the
operations and performance of the office of the Judge Advocate General. The
committee finds that this report fulfils the requirements outlined in the
Guidelines for statutory bodies. Despite this finding, however, the committee
considers that there may be scope for improvement.
1.36
The committee has reviewed the statistical information provided in the
Annexes to the JAG Report. It considers that there are some areas where more
information could be produced. For example, it would welcome statistics on the
types of charges being prosecuted. In particular, it would be useful to have
information regarding whether charges were offences specifically provided for
in the DFDA (such as insubordination, AWOL, etc), or whether they were charges
caught under s61 of the DFDA. Detail about the types of charges prosecuted
would be of assistance (for example, the number of charges laid for assault,
insubordination, etc). The committee would also welcome statistical information
concerning how many trials (both Summary and CM/DFM) were conducted in Australia
and overseas/on operations.
1.37
If it were available, the committee suggests that any information about
the referral of matters to the civilian police for investigation and
prosecution be included in the report. It could include statistics on the
number of alleged crimes reported during the period; the number referred to the
civilian authorities for investigation and prosecution; the outcomes of these
matters; the number of cases referred back to the military and how many were
subsequently pursued by military authorities. The committee would also welcome
information about the number of pre–trial directions hearings and the reviews
of convictions.
1.38
The requirement to provide more detailed information about the progress
of disciplinary matters through their various stages would perhaps also help to
identify areas of systemic delay, and lead to process improvement.
1.39
The committee notes that the JAG provided information about the work of
the office of the DMP. The committee suggests that statistics concerning the
workload of the DMP be included in the report which would include for example
statistics on the number of matters referred to the DMP; the number sent back
to the CO and the matters that proceeded to trial.
1.40
In the current report, the JAG mentioned the defence counsel services
provided to accused service personnel, and suggested that consideration should
be given to establishing an office of defence counsel services. The committee
would welcome statistical information concerning the current nature of
representation at trials, and any relevant observations or contextual
commentary.
1.41
As well as providing statistics, the committee believes that the report
could be more informative by providing commentary that explains the context and
significance of the figures. For example, it would be helpful if the report
identified trends over the period and/or major statistical differences from one
year to the next.
1.42
Whilst the information contained in the report is very helpful, the
committee suggests that the inclusion of additional information and
accompanying explanation would give the statistics some context and make them
more meaningful. The committee considers that the requirement to present an
analysis of the statistics would also encourage a more critical approach to the
collection and collation of statistics.
Recommendation
1.43
The committee recommends that
the JAG provide more detailed statistical information in the Annual Report
including, but not limited to:
- breakdown of offence types;
- trials conducted in Australia
and overseas/on operations;
- referrals to civil authorities;
- duration of trials for the
period;
- pre–trial hearings; and
- review and appeals processes.
The committee also
recommends that the report include some explanation about the statistics
provided in the report especially the relevance of the statistics with regard
to the effectiveness of Australia's military justice system, any notable trends or
significant statistical differences.
Foreign Affairs and
Trade portfolio
Australia–Korea
Foundation
1.44
The Australia–Korea Foundation Annual Report 2003–2004 was tabled
in the Senate on 11 May 2005. The Australian–Korea Foundation (AKF) is a non–statutory
body established by the Australian Government in May 1992. It is not required
to submit an annual report but follows the practice of other bilateral
foundations with secretariats in the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.
1.45
In 1991, a consultative body, set up to identify areas for further
development between the Australian and Korean (ROK) Governments, recommended
that a foundation be established to act as a catalyst in stimulating and
strengthening the bilateral relationship. The Australia–Korea Foundation
‘supports and promotes people–to–people exchanges and sustainable institutional
links covering the spectrum of Australia’s relations with Korea, particularly
in the areas of commerce, industry and tourism; science and technology;
education; and arts and the media’.[22]
1.46
The Chairman, in his overview, reported that one of the highlights of the
2003–2004 year was the publication of the acclaimed George Rose photo book 1904 Korea
through Australian Eyes, containing photographs of everyday life in Korea
taken in 1904:
The Foundation hosted a major reception in Seoul to launch the
book. The book has proven to be enormously popular, as it gives a great many
people in Korea access to aspects of their history that have been lost due to
the decades of turbulence up until 1953.[23]
1.47
The AKF Board travelled to Seoul for the launch. While there, the Board
held its 35th meeting and a joint meeting with its counterpart
organisation, the Korea–Australia Foundation. The two Foundations identified
some key programs for cooperation. These include the Australia–Korea Economic
Forum, an Australia–Korea internship program, a joint study of the impact of China
on Australia–Korea economic relations and a Korea festival in Brisbane and Sydney.
1.48
Other major projects included collaboration on pilot trials of
new broadband applications in the field of e–health and revising the Investigating Australia study kit. During the year the Korean
language version of the kit was finalised and CD–ROM versions were distributed
to all lower secondary schools in the Republic of Korea, where there has been considerable interest. Over the past 18
months substantial effort has gone into promoting the kit in Australia.
1.49
The Korean War Honour Roll quilt
was launched to commemorate the sacrifice of the 340 Australian men who died
during the Korean War, along with a range of activities commemorating the 50th
anniversary of the Korean War armistice.
1.50
The Committee finds this report to be well designed and comprehensive in
its coverage of the Australia–Korea Foundation’s activities. The report
complies with all reporting requirements for non–statutory bodies.
1.51
The Committee considers that all the annual reports of the
abovementioned organisations fully met their respective reporting requirements.
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page