Vince Connelly (Stirling, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I acknowledge the member for Solomon and other veterans in this place. There has been some healthy discussion about this proposed legislation. As did the member for Solomon, I confess to having been at the receiving end of discipline during my military service. Thankfully, it was nothing serious, but it does highlight the point, and the very real fact as well, that there is a great deal of complexity at that middle tier of the disciplinary system. It's referred to as the subordinate summary authority, and it's incredibly complex. There has been some really well-informed debate and a summary of this proposed legislation, but I'll just give a little bit of a sense of what that complexity actually looks like.

Basically, even whilst serving as an officer cadet at the very start of my career at a military university—and the member for Solomon touched on this as well—I was taught about the Defence Force Discipline Act. We were given it in volumes 1 and 2. They were huge volumes. If you needed a computer screen stand, they were ideal. If you had to reach something a bit high up, they were also good to stand on. But, sadly, we also had to actually understand quite a bit of the information contained in the Defence Force Discipline Act.

Not only that, we had to perform the duties of prosecution and defence in a way that is very similar to and, of course, mirrored an actual court of law. So, even whilst we were undertaking military studies, physical training, drill, military history and the many other things which are required in training to become a junior officer, we were trained in a quasi-judicial process. For example, when somebody was the subject of discipline, we had to learn and practise to be a prosecuting officer. In this sense, we had to gather evidence and make sure that it was all appropriately registered ahead of the trial date. Then we had to go into a courtlike proceeding and act as if we were a prosecuting officer. At the same time, we also had to learn the skills of being a defending officer. Here our role was on the flip side, defending the case against the accused, gathering evidence, interrogating witnesses and, if the accused was found to be guilty, offering a plea in mitigation. This was the circumstance where we would request that a situation be taken into account and a sentence be more lenient.

Some of these quite full-on court processes were conducted for what were quite minor infringements, things like staying out a bit too late if you were having a good time with your friends or fraternising in the accommodation lines. These are things which really did not require or justify that level of detailed preparation and conduct.

Further in my career, as I progressed to being a middle-ranking officer—a major—I was then required to actually fill the role of the subordinate summary authority. I heard the member for Fisher, in his earlier contribution, mention that he had even heard reports of full mock trials being conducted before an accused is actually brought in. I can confirm for the member for Fisher, and others who may be interested, that that is exactly what we used to do. That's because the level of complexity was so high that if we did get something wrong and it was a breach of proper process then the entire thing could all be for naught. It would either have to be re-run or, if there had been a significant breach of process, the whole thing may have been thrown out when it eventually got to a legal officer for review.

On that point of legal officers: we have legal officers, as we do education providers, pilots and many other specialist trades brought into Defence to provide their expertise so that we can let war fighters do what they need to do, which is to train, to fight and to win wars. This really is why I'm so supportive of this bill—it enables Defence to focus on its core business, which is getting prepared, training for operations and reinforcing all of the knowledge, skills and attitudes that need to be done at platoon, company and battle group levels and, of course, above that.

This bill will introduce changes which maximise what is working well—in particular, for these disciplinary infringements. Typically, these have been applied at the senior NCO level—something like a warrant officer being able to liaise with somebody in their unit who has allegedly conducted a minor infringement and, if there is no objection, applying a disciplinary infringement which is basic in nature but which obviously matches, in many cases, the offence itself. So it's very sensible in that regard. It will result in a system that will be far easier to use and it will reduce unnecessary delays. This is important, because if somebody has a pending infringement hanging over them for months or, potentially, longer then it can impact, certainly, their morale and that of the rest of the unit, and their ability to attend promotional courses and other training activities as well. So it's really important that we get in and deal with infringements quickly when they occur.

I'm sure that for those of us who have been out there in the world of business, or even in the Public Service, there are systems in place where feedback is provided and correctional courses of action taken. Of course that feedback needs to be timely to correct behaviour, if it has strayed off course, and to ensure that we maintain good behaviour and discipline in any organisation. We've heard from some other contributors—and I absolutely back them on this point—that discipline is an absolutely critical component of defence. In fact, when I was very new in my career I was surprised to learn that discipline is referred to as a critical element of morale. One might think that soldiers, sailors and air men and women, being let free to roam about and not well supervised, might be ideal. But the reality is that it actually breaks down unit cohesion and it breaks down the trust that is so essential, as it underpins the effectiveness of any military fighting force.

That's why it's important that we introduce these reforms. As did the member for Fisher, I commend the minister for his handling of this legislation and his engagement with the committee—the coalition backbench committee on defence and veterans. It's been really pleasing to see this brought forward in such a professional manner. As has been commented upon by others during this debate, we can see that the reform measures will result in a military discipline system which is a great deal easier to use and to understand. This will reduce the delays that I spoke about earlier and be much fairer to all of those involved. It will allow commanders at all levels to more simply and quickly address poor behaviour, create the opportunity for early intervention and enable our Defence Force and personnel to keep providing their valuable service.

See this speech in context