Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Defence Science and Personnel) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak on the Military Justice (Interim Measures) Bill (No. 1) 2009 and the Military Justice (Interim Measures) Bill (No. 2) 2009. By way of introduction, I would like to echo the words of my Senate colleagues and say that the situation that the ADF now finds itself in was inevitable, and it is regrettable that we must hastily employ bandaid type legislation to overcome the immediate requirement for an interim military justice system. The reason for this situation is that the provisions of one of the acts which established the Australian Military Court, the Defence Force Discipline Act 1982, were recently found by the High Court to be invalid. As I previously said, this decision was inevitable, and that is because the Australian Military Court was claiming to exercise a judicial power of the Commonwealth that did not meet the requirements of chapter III of the Constitution. For example, under chapter III, judges are required to be given tenure until retirement and, additionally, are required to be appointed by the Governor-General in Council. Neither of these conditions were met by the Australian Military Court.

There is now some debate about why the decision was made to ignore the advice of the parliament and proceed with the establishment of the Australian Military Court without regard to chapter III considerations. For the record, Defence was advised that the hybrid form of court they sought to establish would be problematic, as you cannot have or exercise judicial power other than pursuant to chapter III of the Australian Constitution. However, while I agree that the circumstances under which the Australian Military Court was founded are less than ideal, I will not enter into a debate on those circumstances. I believe it is suffice to say that there is little value in concentrating on the past policy formation deficiencies in this instance. Instead, what is needed now is the concerted effort of the Minister for Defence in resolving this crisis of military justice reform.

The issues confronting the defence minister are daunting and the complexities of this constitutional legal matter should not be understated. In this circumstance, expediency is not the key priority. The priority must be to ensure that the Australian Defence Force has a military justice system that is constitutional. What is more, the coalition believes firmly in the development of a military justice system that is impartial, independent and transparent and meets community expectations regarding the application of legal principles. Importantly, the new military justice architecture must also ensure that Australian Defence Force members are treated fairly and equitably. I am sure that all would agree that we cannot afford to repeat the mistakes of the past.

The purpose of the Military Justice (Interim Measures) Bill (No. 1) 2009 is to reinstate the military justice system that existed prior to the establishment of the Australian Military Court. This bill will amend the Defence Force Discipline Act 1982, the Defence Force Discipline Appeals Act 1955, the Defence Act 1903, the Migration Act 1958 and the Judges’ Pensions Act 1968 to reinstate the provisions in each act which existed prior to the introduction of the Defence Legislation Amendment Act 2006, which established the Australian Military Court. Furthermore, the bill will include transitional arrangements that will, for example, provide provisions for all matters that have been referred on appeal to the Australian Military Court but were not concluded prior to 26 August 2009. This bill will also address the status of the Australian Military Court office holders and will, for example, include provisions for their automatic transition to the relevant positions of Chief Judge Advocate, members of the judge advocates panel and Registrar of Military Justice. Broadly speaking, this bill will, by temporarily reinstating the old military justice system, provide time for the establishment of a military court that meets the requirements of chapter III of the Australian Constitution.

On the matter of the Military Justice (Interim Measures) Bill (No. 2) 2009, I would now like to make some brief comments. Firstly, the intended purpose of this bill is to maintain the continuity of discipline in the Defence Force. Furthermore, it will validate all previous decisions that were made by the Australian Military Court prior to the recent High Court decision. I note, however, that there may be certain issues arising from this interim legislation, and that is to be expected. As my colleagues in the Senate have previously pointed out, this legislation is an interim measure that was developed in a relatively short period of time in order to ensure the continuity of ADF legal and discipline processes. It is accepted that this legislation is not perfect. It is, however, the best that can be done to ensure a workable transitional arrangement. However, this bill does contain certain safeguards. For example, the bill gives affected persons the right to have their cases reviewed in the instances where they were found to be liable under the Australian Military Court. Furthermore, all cases whereby the individual was deemed liable and was disciplined by an act of detention will be automatically reviewed. Lastly, if a person was found not to be liable under the subsequent review, this bill provides the reviewing authority with the powers to discharge that liability.

The coalition will urge the government to move expeditiously in bringing forward legislation that will establish a chapter III court. Needless to say, the coalition is also committed to supporting the government in resolving the current impasse in an expedient manner while ensuring that the new system adheres to chapter III requirements. I would like to take this opportunity to recognise the work undertaken by Senators Johnston and Brandis on behalf of the coalition regarding this issue. This is an inherently complex legal issue and has presented the defence minister with an unenviable task. Yet it is an important task that will benefit from considered thought. I would therefore like to say that the support offered to the Minister for Defence by Senators Johnston and Brandis is exceedingly generous and that their combined legal intellect will naturally help in the construction of legislation that will rebuild the shattered military justice system.

The situation the ADF now finds itself in is regrettable. However, I believe that an opportunity now exists to develop an appropriate and constitutionally endorsed military legal system. That is why the coalition will work with the government in ensuring that the men and women of our Australian defence forces will have an impartial, transparent and independent military legal system. We commend the amendments to the House.

Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise in support of the Military Justice (Interim Measures) Bill (No. 1) 2009 and Military Justice (Interim Measures) Bill (No. 2) 2009, which, as the House has heard from the second reading speech, are a response to the decision of the High Court in Lane v Morrison, handed down on 26 August 2009. In that decision the High Court declared the provisions establishing the Australian Military Court in the Defence Force Discipline Act 1982 to be invalid. As we have heard from previous speakers, those provisions, which established the Australian Military Court, came into existence through legislation passed by the former government in 2006—namely, the Defence Legislation Amendment Act 2006. It was legislation which was criticised by Labor in opposition. Labor, indeed, drew attention to the very problem which has been identified by the High Court in Lane v Morrison and which has led to this legislation being struck down.

As the House has heard, this is legislation to, as a stopgap, reintroduce the former system of trials by court-martial and Defence Force magistrates. It is a system which, I think it is fair to say—because it was in existence for many years before the amendments to the scheme came in in 2006—is well understood, but it does not, of course, represent reform in any sense because it is a return to the system which applied prior to October 2007. As a consequence, it is a system of which we can say that it has known historical support, that it has known constitutional support and that it is familiar to very many—perhaps I should not say all—ADF personnel. Certainly those who were members of the ADF before October 2007 would be familiar with this system.

It is necessary to legislate in this way because it is critical that the ADF have a functioning military discipline system, particularly when the forces are engaged, as currently, in operations overseas. The government has acted with extraordinary promptness, as was called for in the decision made by the High Court and handed down on 26 August 2009. But it is a system, as I have indicated, that does not amount to reform; it amounts to a return to the system that was in place. The trials by court martial and the Defence Force Magistrate were guided and reviewed by senior counsel under the former system, and under the system as will exist, it is hoped, on a temporary basis were guided to ensure that they were conducted in accordance with law and that any convictions and punishments were appropriate in the circumstances. Under the former system, the one that is to be reinstated, if ADF members remained dissatisfied with the conduct and outcome of their trial, they had additional rights to petition their service chief and to appeal to the Defence Force Discipline Appeal Tribunal and the Federal Court on questions of law.

The regret is that a great deal of work that occurred in 2005 and in earlier years directed at reform of the military justice system and at the often cogent criticisms that had been expressed about the military justice system will now have to commence again. And the regret is that the period of nearly three years since the amendments were brought in 2006 is a period that has effectively gone to waste. It is also a regret that the problems that have led to the legislation being struck down by the High Court are problems that were directly identified both in a Senate committee report in 2005 and by opposition members in this parliament at the time that the legislation was presented.

The House should not be in any doubt about the clarity of the High Court’s reasons for striking down the legislative scheme. One need go no further than the joint judgment of Chief Justice French, writing with Justice Gummow, in the decision handed down on 26 August, Lane v Morrison, where Their Honours outlined reasons for their conclusion that the legislation was invalid in these terms:

… The judicial power identified in Ch III is that of a body politic, namely the Commonwealth, which is distinct from that of the States and, given the presence of s 74, that of the United Kingdom. The powers of the Parliament to create courts are found only in ss 71, 72 and 122 of the Constitution. The creation of the AMC is not supported by s 122 as a law with respect to the government of any territory. Nor is the AMC comprised of Justices who are appointed by the Governor-General in Council and with the tenure provided by s 72 of the Constitution.

Further, however, the jurisdiction conferred upon the AMC by s 115 of the Act, to try charges of service offences, involves the exercise of the judicial power of the Commonwealth otherwise than in accordance with Ch III of the Constitution. Legislation conferring that jurisdiction is consistent with the Constitution only if the changes introduced by the 2006 Act, including the establishment of the AMC, are supported by s 51(vi) of the Constitution.

Their Honours go on to explain at length, as does the other joint judgment in the decision, why that was not the case.

As I have said, this outcome, with the uncertainty that it has created for the Australian military justice system, is an outcome which could have been avoided had the words of caution expressed by opposition Labor members in this place at the time been heeded. It is worth noting, for example, what was said on this subject—which has now been raised to such devastating effect in the High Court’s decision—by the member for Barton in his then capacity as shadow Attorney-General during debate on the legislation that has now been declared invalid, the Defence Legislation Amendment Bill 2006. The member for Barton said:

In legal terms there has long been a debate about the authority of military tribunals. They have been challenged in the High Court for their lack of jurisdictional independence and impartiality. The view expressed by the Judge Advocate General is that the closer such a tribunal can be aligned to the arrangements for a court established under chapter III of the Constitution the less likely that a court or tribunal will be subject to challenge. The statement is significant, as we know that there are currently new applications challenging the authority of the current system in the High Court. The pity is that, if the government had accepted the committee’s recommendations—

and the member for Barton was there referring to the 2005 Senate committee report—

for a military court akin to those established under chapter III of the Constitution, this doubt would have been avoided.

The member for Barton went on to explain how other warnings that had been given both by the Judge Advocate General and by the Law Council of Australia in this regard had been dismissed by the government. That is why it is a matter of some curiosity to see the present shadow Attorney-General, Senator Brandis, seeking to avoid the conclusion which everyone should draw, which is that the then government was in error in pushing through the legislation which it did, against the recommendations of very many commentators—against the recommendations of the Law Council, against the recommendations of the Senate committee—and why it is right for members of this House to perhaps look with curiosity at the comments that were reported to have been made by Senator Brandis to the effect that the opposition now ‘backs any plan’, as he put it, to make any new military disciplinary body part of the Federal Court system. While he reportedly says that a 2005 report by the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee had ‘proposed such a course and had warned of the issues of not setting up the Australian Military Court as a chapter III court’, Senator Brandis is now reported to have said:

But the views of Defence that there wasn’t a problem prevailed and we can now see that the Senate was right and the Defence Department was wrong.

Those comments are something of a curiosity, because what is left out of that account of the legislative process, which seems to have included only the defence department and a Senate committee, is the role of something called the government. The former government made a decision to legislate in this way, ignoring advice from very many respected sources, ignoring the conclusions that had been reached about the need for close attention to the provisions of chapter III of the Australian Constitution, and it has resulted in the uncertainty which now has to be attended to by this remedial legislation. It is something which could have been avoided and should have been avoided, but it is now left to this government to step in, as we are doing, to introduce what is anticipated to be temporary legislation designed to ensure continuity of a system of military justice, which is of course very important. I commend the legislation to the House.

Dick Adams (Lyons, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I call the honourable member for Herbert.

Peter Lindsay (Herbert, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thanks, Mr Deputy Speaker. You forgot to add ‘honorary Tasmanian’.

Mike Kelly (Eden-Monaro, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Defence Support) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Dr Kelly interjecting

Peter Lindsay (Herbert, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

At least I am not a Victorian, Parliamentary Secretary! Tonight, in discussing the Military Justice (Interim Measures) Bill (No. 1) 2009 and the related bill, it is fitting that we have Wing Commander Tracey Timms and Squadron Leader Murray Johnson with us in the parliament. They are both taking part in the ADF attachment to parliament, overseen by the Parliamentary Secretary for Defence Support, who is at the table. It is a very good process and long may it continue. We all enjoy and learn a lot from it. It was particularly interesting for Squadron Leader Johnson, who is attached to my office, to see how the parliament reacts to this kind of issue, to see what we are doing to make sure that the interests of the Australian Defence Force and the men and women of the ADF are protected, and it is good to see that this process is happening.

When the High Court struck down the Australian Military Court, it presented a very significant problem for military justice, for this parliament, for the ADF and for the wider community. But knowing the importance of making sure that this issue is addressed, the opposition is committed to working with the government to ensure that a permanent solution is found—for now and the future—and quickly. The first solution was to provide what is really a temporary answer to the problem, and that is what these bills are about. These bills rectify the problem that Defence has, that the government has and that the ADF has in the short term. I want to sincerely thank the Minister for Defence for his prompt response in getting this legislation to the parliament, first to the Senate and then the House of Representatives, and in reacting to what was not an entirely unexpected decision of the High Court.

I would like to discuss for a minute some of the history of the Australian Military Court. It was judged that military justice in Australia was certainly in need of reform after a long period, and over the last decade there have been a number of inquiries and committees investigating the serious issues in military justice. I particularly refer to the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee, which embarked on an inquiry into wide reform, culminating in a number of recommendations published in their 2005 report. One of these recommendations called for the court to be established in accordance with chapter III of the Commonwealth Constitution to ensure its independence and impartiality. As part of this, the report proposed judges be appointed by the Governor-General in Council and be appointed with tenure until reaching retirement age.

As the previous speaker indicated, there were certainly some concerns about the form of that court, and it is now history that the form adopted by the former government did not in fact withstand the scrutiny of the law. Part of the problem was that the former government took the advice of Defence. I am not being critical of Defence—I am just stating the facts. Defence wanted this particular arrangement and Defence got this particular arrangement, but it was not an appropriate arrangement at law. Perhaps in hindsight the former government should have accepted wider advice, but that was not to be the case and now we have a situation where we have to address this problem, and address this problem the parliament will.

The court was then created under the Defence Force Discipline Act 1982, and the legislation was supported—this is interesting—by both the coalition government and the then Labor opposition. On 29 August 2009, the High Court found that the provisions of this act which established the Australian Military Court were invalid. In a unanimous judgment in Lane v Morrison it was held that the Australian Military Court had been attempting to exercise a judicial power of the Commonwealth but it did not meet the criteria under chapter III. Of course, the significance of that statement is that Morrison is a Defence Force member—from which city, Parliamentary Secretary Kelly? It would have to be Townsville, wouldn’t it? All of the senior leadership of the ADF, particularly in Army, have been through Townsville, and that is why Townsville will be the premier garrison city of this nation. I hope that the Commander of 1st Brigade is listening to this debate.

The legislation before the House today will reinstate the previous system of military justice used in Australia as a temporary measure. It reflects the Defence Force discipline legislation prior to the creation of the AMC. It will re-establish trials by court martial and Defence Force magistrates and reinstate the powers of reviewing authorities.

The purpose of the second bill is to maintain the stability of discipline and its implementation in the Defence Force. The current members of the Australian Military Court will be transferred to the positions reinstated by this bill, including the Chief Judge Advocate, the Judge Advocate’s Panel and the Registrar of Military Justice. The bill also includes provisions to deal with matters which had been referred to, but not finalised, by the Australian Military Court as of 29 August 2009. It is something of a housekeeping bill but it certainly clarifies what the position will be when these bills pass the parliament.

While offering the government the full support of the opposition in passing these measures, I note that there are some concerns, particularly with regard to resolution. I have congratulated the Minister for Defence on the prompt presentation of the interim measures legislation to parliament, but the decision in Lane v Morrison was not unexpected. Perhaps it might have been prudent for those who advise the government to have worked out what the long-term solution would be rather than just the interim solution, and it would have been better to have been debating tonight a permanent solution in the best interests of the Australian Defence Force and the wider community rather than a temporary solution. However, we have the temporary solution before the parliament and, hopefully, we will get it through this evening and that will clarify the issue.

It is imperative for the commanders in the ADF that the discipline system of the ADF not be disrupted. The interim measures bills revert to the old tribunal system. It is important that consistency in military justice be maintained; however, it is equally vital that a permanent solution be found, and I call on the government to again act promptly in presenting legislation which will establish a permanent chapter III court. The government and the opposition will work together to pass the interim measures before the parliament, and the next question becomes what long-term solution can be found when these measures expire.

My colleague in the Senate Senator George Brandis SC has highlighted the folly of the government’s decision in May this year to abolish the Federal Magistrates Court. This was opposed by the opposition. The Federal Magistrates Court has summary jurisdiction which includes dealing with military justice. Senator Brandis has called on the government to create a military division within the Federal Court and of the Federal Magistrates Court. This would seem to be an entirely and eminently sensible way forward. Those of us who deal with the Federal Magistrates Court, with its principal role often in Family Court matters, will know what a success the court has been; that is why we oppose the abolition of the FMC. But it has wider powers. There is the opportunity to establish a military division within the FMC, and it is a pity that this option may in fact now not be possible.

It is contrary to common sense to abolish a Federal Court with the summary jurisdiction to deal with matters such as military justice. The government have yet to formally act on their announcement to abolish the FMC, and, in light of recent developments, I strongly urge the government to reconsider their plans as a solution to this particular problem. All of us want the neatest and simplest solution, and this is a way that, together, we could work urgently towards a permanent military justice system in Australia. The coalition is committed to an impartial, fair and strong military justice system for the Australian Defence Force and the wider community. It is important this system meets appropriate standards of fairness, transparency and independence.

I finish my contribution by again committing that the opposition will work with the government and the ADF together in partnership to get the best result for the problem which faces the ADF at this time.

Janelle Saffin (Page, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I speak in support of the Military Justice (Interim Measures) Bill (No. 1) 2009 and the Military Justice (Interim Measures) Bill (No. 2) 2009. Bill No. 1 reinstates the military justice machinery and it does so by amending a number of acts. As we know, this has been necessitated by the High Court’s decision on 26 August this year in Lane v Morrison, where it declared invalid the provisions that established the Australian Military Court. I commend the Minister for Defence in acting so swiftly to bring this legislation before the parliament.

My colleague the honourable member for Isaacs has covered the constitutional reasons. Everybody keeps referring to them as complex constitutional reasons—maybe, but chapter III is pretty straightforward as are certain provisions, and there has been a long lead time with this legislation during which legal advice has been given in many areas, including with my parliamentary colleague the honourable member for Barton, now the Attorney-General. So what the outcome of some of that might be was clear. However, I will leave that, recognising there are always some complexities around High Court decisions and constitutionality.

The AMC did have a long period of operation and did commence under the previous government. Yes, there can be a debate about who said what and who gave advice—it is now a matter of public record—but the issue itself has bipartisan support of all members. We do need a modern and coherent military justice system. That was the basis of the Australian Military Court. I will make a brief comment on bill No. 2 and then a few remarks that cover both.

The Military Justice (Interim Measures) Bill (No. 2) 2009 is necessitated by the invalidity, but the objective of bill No. 2 is to maintain the continuity of discipline in the Defence Force. The way in which this will be done is by instituting disciplinary sanctions on the persons who had punishments imposed by the AMC. It will also cover, where necessary, summary authorities in the period between when the AMC was established and the High Court’s declaration of invalidity. This is absolutely essential. In the Senate the Minister for Defence in his closing remarks in the second reading debate said:

This bill does not purport to validate any convictions or punishments imposed by the AMC, nor does the bill purport to convict any person of any offence.

The Parliamentary Secretary for Defence Support said the same thing just a little while ago in this House. It is an important distinction that needs to be made and understood when we are introducing these bills. The other important provision with this is that if an ADF member remained dissatisfied with the conduct and outcome of their trial then they had the additional right to petition their service chief, to appeal to the Defence Force Discipline Appeal Tribunal and other rights. I understand that what flows from this legislation is the ability to have those appeal rights in place but with the punishment still standing.

There is another issue that the Minister for Defence has addressed. The minister made it clear that the current action of the government is working to establish a military justice system, a military court, that will be in conformity with chapter III of the Constitution. I understand that that work is in place now. Hopefully there will not be a big time lag, but it is absolutely necessary to do what is being done by the government decisively so as to cover that period and so that there will be a system set up.

It is important to have a system that we know and understand, and one that all the ADF members understand. So it is important that we are instituting something that is known to all parties. But it is critical to move forward and to have a system that will sit at the pinnacle of the military justice system, if you like. Even though it will deal only with a small number of cases, as the Australian Military Court did, it will be informing and benchmarking the entire system. That is where its primary role will be: in changing the nature of military justice.

I have a few concluding remarks. To re-establish an effective military justice system, the Defence Force Discipline Act 1982 will be reinstated. This covers courts martial and Defence Force magistrates; the position of Chief Judge Advocate, the judge advocate’s panel and the Registrar of Military Justice; reviews and petitions in respect of both summary trials and trials held by courts martial or Defence Force magistrates; and reviewing authorities. The previous amendments to the said act, directed to improve the summary authority system, will be retained. My advice is that the class of offence system, which determined how an offence would be dealt with by the AMC, was not specifically struck down by the High Court. But this system will be replaced by the bill. So there will be that continuity and a coherent approach to it. With those remarks, I commend the bills to the House.

Luke Simpkins (Cowan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As a former Army officer I am pleased to be able to speak on the Military Justice (Interim Measures) Bill (No. 1) 2009 and the Military Justice (Interim Measures) Bill (No. 2) 2009. These bills came about as a result of a decision by the High Court of Australia on 26 August 2009 whereby the provisions establishing the Australian Military Court were ruled invalid. The court found that the Australian Military Court was exercising the judicial powers of the Commonwealth without meeting the requirements of chapter III of the Constitution. These bills will re-establish the pre-2007 Defence Force Discipline Act 1982 arrangements, until such time as legislation for the court can be reintroduced and passed.

Specifically, the purpose of the Military Justice (Interim Measures) Bill (No. 1) 2009 is to reinstate the military justice machinery which was in existence prior to the establishment of the Australian Military Court. The bill amends the Defence Force Discipline Act 1982, the Defence Force Discipline Appeals Act 1955, the Defence Act 1903, the Migration Act 1958 and the Judges Pensions Act 1968 to restore the provisions in each act which existed prior to the introduction of the Defence Legislation Amendment Act 2006, which established the Australian Military Court. Under the Australian Military Court, military judges had presided over cases and operated outside the chain of command. The legislation which established the Australian Military Court has fallen short of these recommendations.

As an interim measure, Defence is planning to reintroduce the service tribunal system that existed before the creation of the Australian Military Court by reinstating the Defence Force Discipline Act 1982 as it was prior to the amendments in 2006. This will re-establish trials by courts martial and Defence Force magistrates; reinstate the statutory position of Chief Judge Advocate, the judge advocate’s panel and the Registrar of Military Justice; reinstate the system of reviews and petitions in respect of both summary trials and trials by courts martial or Defence Force magistrates; and reinstate the powers of reviewing authorities. The consequential amendments made in 2006 to the Defence Force Discipline Appeals Act 1955, the Defence Act 1903, the Migration Act 1958 and the Judges Pensions Act 1968 which make reference to the Australian Military Court will also be reversed.

The purpose of the Military Justice (Interim Measures) Bill (No. 2) 2009 is to maintain the continuity of discipline in the Defence Force. It also states that the provisions of the schedule that declare people to have particular rights or liabilities have effect for Defence Force service purposes only. The bill also provides that if a provision has an invalid application because it exceeds the Commonwealth’s power, but it has at least one valid application, the provision will not have an invalid application; rather, it will reflect the parliament’s intention that the provisions in this schedule are to have every valid application.

The bill also ensures that third parties that have acted on the basis of a punishment intended to have been imposed or an order intended to have been made by the AMC are entitled, and always were entitled, to act on that basis and declares the rights and liabilities of a person to be, and always to have been, as if certain specified matters had been the case.

Over my 15 years in the Army I had some contact with the system of military justice. It was all professional; I was not on the receiving end of any of that justice, apart from my training at Duntroon! I always had a sense of confidence in the system, but only if it was applied as it should have been. I would certainly agree that the system held out the opportunity too often for matters to be dealt with internally. As a member of the Army’s Special Investigation Branch for two years I felt that, where serious and important matters could have been investigated by the SIB, the option of dealing with matters internally was too often taken up by unit commanders. The SIB had to be called by unit commanders and could not initiate investigations themselves. I believe that for matters such as assaults that were ‘dealt with’ internally justice could not have been either served or seen to be served. When we look back on that period in the early 1990s, it is not surprising that those sorts of arrangements created an environment where justice failed the soldiers.

Justice, of course, is important for morale. Within months of graduating from RMC Duntroon, I saw a commissioned officer assault a steward in the officers’ mess. I gave evidence at a commanding officer’s hearing that I had seen the common assault take place. Yes, the officer was found guilty of a basic common assault but with no punishment and no conviction recorded. This is not the way to strengthen morale, when commissioned officers are not subject to the same standards and sanctions as apply to the enlisted personnel.

I have no doubt that there has been the need for a number of inquiries into the way military justice has been handled, and I have more examples from the time of my direct involvement in military investigations and justice between 1989 and 1994. I think that much of the problem was related to unit commanders of units and independent subunits, as they were very keen to demonstrate that everything was good in their unit, even when it was not. I reiterate that my perspective in these matters was that if unit commanders and their formation commanders used the system and the DFDA as they should have the system could have worked and justice could have been dispensed. The reality, as shown by many inquiries, is that the DFDA was applied as an option by some and, when it was used, sometimes the options for sanctions were inappropriately used. That was my experience. I would also say that the responsibility for these breakdowns and these decisions often rested with commissioned officers.

In reading into the detail of these bills and the matters surrounding the requirement for these bills, it would seem that in 2007 the problems I have outlined remained. I believe that the defence department strongly advocated for the flawed structure that the High Court struck down in the case of Lane v Morrison. It is my understanding that, acting on the advice of the defence department, the 2007 legislation was agreed to by the minister. It seems that the trouble with defence is that the chain of command has been used to provide protection for some at the cost of providing justice and protection for the weak. Clearly the administration of justice must be outside the chain of command and demonstrate visibility and accountability. That has not always been achieved and it is now up to this parliament to get the military justice system back to where it can operate and then as soon as possible establish an independent military court.

There are those who think that there should be no military court and that the police should investigate all incidents. I would tell them that it cannot be like that. The operational and security aspects of the three services necessitate the need for an investigative capacity with independence from local formations and a court system beyond the influence of commanders so that on operations and other military-specific circumstances justice can be carried out.

I look forward to supporting these bills in their passage through the House and I look forward to the introduction of fresh legislation that will support the establishment and operation of the Australian Military Court. I look forward to the establishment of a military court which stands effectively outside the chain of command.

I would conclude by saying that it is not and never has been in the best interests of the Defence Force and its personnel to have senior officers deciding when, how and to what extent the military justice system is to be applied. This is particularly true when the extent of that application has been motivated by an intention to protect personal or unit reputations. I would state that, while I make those comments, the majority of commissioned officers are dedicated and honourable men and women, who always do what they think is the right thing. I look forward to the passing of these bills and a future with a better military justice system.

Arch Bevis (Brisbane, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

These bills—the Military Justice (Interim Measures) Bill (No. 1) 2009 and the Military Justice (Interim Measures) Bill (No. 2) 2009are important. We are all aware of the circumstances of the court case that led to the requirement for these matters to be dealt with by this parliament, but it does also provide an opportunity for this parliament to look more broadly at some of the issues of military justice that have been drawn to the attention of the parliament over many years. I do not wish to go over the recent court case or, indeed, the detail of the provisions of the bills per se. I would rather deal with the issue of military justice more generally. I do that as a member of this parliament who has spent most of the last 20 years as a member of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade and in various roles, both in government and in opposition, in executive positions and as a shadow minister in the defence portfolio.

We are fortunate in this country to have the calibre of people in the Defence Force that we do. Whatever else is said in this debate, I think the first thing that needs to be acknowledged is that the men and women of the Australian Defence Force, those in uniform and those not in uniform—but, in respect of this matter, particularly those in uniform—undertake their very difficult tasks with a sense of duty and commitment that does this nation proud. On every occasion in which they have been required to undertake their difficult job, we have always been able to be confident that they would do it well. Indeed, this House has on many occasions proudly expressed its appreciation for what they do. I say that not as a jingoistic, patriotic thing to say; I say it as someone who has spent most of the last two decades closely engaged from a policy and parliamentary oversight perspective in the affairs of national defence. But it would be wrong of us as members of this parliament, particularly those of us who feel a special affinity and affection for the defence forces, not to recognise also that when it comes to military justice the performance has been less than acceptable on too many occasions.

This parliament has itself established inquiries not once, not twice but a number of times. I actually have not been able to count them all up prior to coming into this chamber, but there have been many inquiries conducted by different committees of this parliament, and indeed inquiries initiated by the government conducted at arm’s length from both the department and the Defence Force, into some of the problems of military justice. I think the most recent and comprehensive of those parliamentary inquiries was conducted by the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee in 2005. In many respects it was that committee’s report that led to the changes in the military justice system that were the subject of an appeal and have been found wanting by the court. That does not mean that the problems identified by that Senate inquiry do not exist. I refer to a couple of paragraphs from that Senate report:

Despite several attempts to reform the military justice system, Australian defence personnel continue to operate under a system that, for too many, is seemingly incapable of effectively addressing its own weaknesses. This inquiry has received evidence detailing flawed investigations, prosecutions, tribunal structures and administrative procedures. A decade of rolling inquiries has not met with the broad-based change required to protect the rights of service personnel. The committee considers that major change is required to ensure independence and impartiality in the military justice system and believes that it is time to consider another approach to military justice.

In fact, the committee recommended quite a radical departure. The committee recommended that all criminal activity should be referred to civilian authorities. In the end, the government of the day did not accept that recommendation. An alternative course was followed and the courts have now decided that parts of that alternative course fail the constitutional requirements. Nonetheless, the problems that this committee referred to should not be assumed to have been dealt with in the brief couple of years since this report was presented.

The committee referred to 10 different reports into these matters and elsewhere they identified some of them. I want to refer to some of them here: the 2002-03 Western Australian coroner’s investigation of the HMAS Westralia fire; the 2001 Burchett QC inquiry into military justice in the ADF; and the 2001 Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade inquiry called Rough Justiceand, if my memory serves me correctly, the current Chief Government Whip, the member for Chifley, Roger Price, was a major participant in that investigation into allegations of brutality in the Army’s Parachute Battalion; I can remember some of those details because I was the shadow minister at the time and the events do not make for happy reading; the 1999 Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade inquiry into military justice procedures; the 1998 Commonwealth Ombudsman’s own motion investigation into how the ADF responds to allegations of serious incidents and offences; and the 1997 Adderby study into the judicial system under the Defence Force Disciplinary Act. They are only some of the inquiries, and in addition to the matters that were looked at in those inquiries and the events that led to them being established I am aware of a number of other serious cases in which my view is that proper justice was not made available to aggrieved members of the ADF. Some of them would have been cited in some of these reports; others were not.

What has concerned me so often over the years is the number of cases there have been on board ships. Going back to the late 1980s, I can remember just before I came in here there were concerns about the way women were being treated on some of the Navy vessels. It is not that long ago that there was a major concern in this building and in the Australian public about the treatment of submariners crossing the equator. There were concerns about the way in which students at ADFA were being treated and, indeed, there have been a number of cases over a period of years where that has been so. Over these years, in government and in opposition, I have had the opportunity to talk with the appropriate senior officers in the ADF, all of whom are totally committed to ensuring proper practice and, where proper practice is not adopted, to ensuring that justice is done. Yet, in spite of what I believe to be their firm and clear commitment to that, you can see here a repeat of problems on a regular basis. I have to say that leads me to think that it is not just the odd commander or the odd individual in the system. When you have these sorts of events occurring across services, over time, in different locations and in different units, you have to conclude that there is a systemic problem here. In spite of all the best efforts of those involved in dealing with this matter, it is hard for me to escape the conclusion that there is not a systemic problem.

When this Senate committee delivered its report in 2005 I actually thought that was, in many ways, a breath of fresh air—difficult but necessary. In any large organisation, but particularly one that functions as the ADF does where there is of necessity a strong espirit de corps, a belief in one another and a willingness to work with others and, indeed, die with others who are beside you, it is not surprising that often when events that are difficult arise—embarrassing, hard to confront—there is a tendency perhaps to sweep them under the carpet. That is not through any sense of evil but, in many cases, through a desire to protect the good name of the organisation because, let us be frank, these people are willing to lay down their lives for it. I can understand that, but I do not think in the long run it does any of them any good.

In that Senate report, the committee refer to some of the evidence they took. Again, I just want to refer briefly to part of what they said. The committee noted:

What is striking about the submissions to this inquiry is the variety of background and experience in their demographic. The complainants range from a 15 year old female cadet to a 50 year old male two-star general equivalent and include every single rank level in between those two extremes.

That is pretty comprehensive—from a 15-year-old female cadet to a two-star general and every rank in between. The report went on:

They include serving and ex-serving personnel, general service and specialist officers and other ranks, legal officers and health professionals, police and convicted persons, civilian Defence employees and Equity officers, mental health and social workers, community and returned service groups and, most poignant of all, the next of kin of deceased members.

Elsewhere the committee commented:

Complaints were made to this inquiry about recent events including suicides, deaths through accident, major illicit drug use, serious abuses of power in training schools and cadet units, flawed prosecutions and failed, poor investigations.

That was 2005. For the good of the men and women of the defence forces, we have to ensure not only that there is in place the will amongst command levels to address these problems—because I firmly believe that has always been the case—but also that the structures we legislate produce the outcomes that everybody would aspire to. Try as this parliament has, irrespective of who may have been on the government benches, over the course of the last 15 to 20 years—and no doubt longer but, in my experience in this place, 20 years—we have not been able to produce that outcome. In response to this issue, the previous parliament adopted reforms which I think fell a long way short of what the Senate committee thought should happen—but, nonetheless, the reforms enjoyed the support of both sides of the chamber, as this legislation does.

If we are going to be candid today, we need to comprehend that we have not fixed those problems. One thing that I hope transpires from this debate and the consideration of this legislation is that we regard this not as the end of the matter but as a necessary next step in the process. Clearly, the legislation is required, given the determinations that have been made in other places. But there needs to be a concerted, concentrated effort on the part of all concerned—in uniform, in the department and in the government—to address the sorts of problems that the committee report partly chronicled. The report is scary enough, but people who have been engaged in this area over the last two decades are aware that this report is itself not complete in respect of chronicling all of the problems.

So, yes, I am very pleased to support the legislation and I commend the government and the ministers in the defence portfolio for the actions they have taken swiftly to deal with the problem that was presented to them, but I would say to all of us that there is much more work that needs to be done. We owe it to the men and women in uniform, particularly, to ensure not only that they can work—and carry out what is a very difficult job—in an environment where they will be free from persecution and improper actions but also that, in the event that their rights may be infringed, they have proper recourse, like any other workplace or any other part of society. There are always going to be the unique chain of command issues associated with ADF life—and everybody understands that—but the sorts of issues that are mentioned in this report and the sorts of issues that many of us are aware of go well beyond any reasonable interpretation of those things.

I hope we will use this debate to renew our efforts to find a better justice system. We did not have one prior to 2005. We thought as a parliament that we had made improvements with the amendments. We now know that they are unconstitutional. The matter does not rest here today. It does not rest with the passage of this legislation. More work needs to be done to deal with the problems that the Senate committee report identified. With all due respect to the bills before the House, all the problems are probably not going to be solved by this legislation. I wish I were wrong about that, but I suspect there are still going to be problems. My one plea to those involved in the day-to-day carriage of these matters is to keep working. This is a good step forward but there is still a long way to go.

Nola Marino (Forrest, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise tonight to speak on the Military Justice (Interim Measures) Bill (No. 1) 2009 and the Military Justice (Interim Measures) Bill (No. 2) 2009, which seek to reinstate the military justice mechanism which pre-existed the establishment of the Australian Military Court. The coalition maintains its strong commitment to a military justice system that is impartial, that meets community expectations for transparency and independence, and that at all times treats Australian Defence Force members fairly.

There has been a lot of history and we have observed substantial changes in the administration of the Australian military justice system over the last decade. In 2007, the ADF dismissed the advice of the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee when establishing the Australian Military Court. The ADF were informed at the time that they could not have judicial power other than pursuant to chapter III of the Australian Constitution. Subsequently, the ADF were informed that the ‘hybrid’ form of court they sought to establish was problematic. The parliament charted a course so that Australia could have a standalone, independent military judicial arm comparable to those of the United States, Britain and Canada. Unfortunately, this was ignored by the ADF.

The notice applied to the ADF regarding the court came to a head on 26 August, with the High Court invalidating the newly created court, with consequent cost and uncertainty. The High Court declared that the provisions that established the Australian Military Court were invalid because the court was found to be exercising the judicial power of the Commonwealth without meeting the requirements of chapter III of the Constitution. As an interim measure, the ADF are intending to broadly re-establish the service tribunal system by reinstating the Defence Force Discipline Act 1982 as it was prior to the amendments in 2006.

What is needed now is rigorous effort by the Minister for Defence to resolve this crisis of military justice reform. In the interim, it is critical and urgent that the Australian Defence Force has a functioning military discipline system, particularly when it is engaged in active service operations overseas, such as our standing Naval presence in the Persian Gulf, engagement in counterpiracy activities and the considerable presence of service men and women on the ground in Afghanistan. The temporary reinstatement of the military justice system which pre-existed the establishment of the Australian Military Court will not only address the gap in the disposition of higher level military discipline; it will also allow time for the establishment of a military court which meets the requirements of chapter 3 of the Constitution, including the introduction of appropriate legislation for this purpose.

I would like to make particular reference to the Military Justice (Interim Measures) Bill (No. 2) 2009, which is aimed to maintain the continuity of discipline in the Defence Force. As the Senate has previously pointed out, this legislation is an interim measure that was developed in a relatively short period of time in order to ensure the continuity of ADF legal and discipline processes. It is accepted that this legislation is not perfect; however, it is a beginning and it is the best that could be done to ensure workable transitional arrangements. Considering the short period of time over which members of the ADF have been subjected to the now defunct Australian Military Court, the impact of re-introducing the Defence Force Discipline Act 1982 as an interim measure will be negligible, if indeed it is felt at all.

The coalition maintains a strong commitment to a military justice system that is impartial and that at all times treats Australian Defence Force members fairly. The object of these bills is to maintain the continuity of discipline in the Defence Force. As the member for Paterson highlighted earlier, we cannot afford to repeat the mistakes of the past. The coalition will urge the government to move expeditiously in bringing forward legislation that will establish a chapter 3 court. We will work with the government to ensure that the men and women of the ADF will have an impartial, transparent, independent and constitutional military legal system.

Bruce Billson (Dunkley, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Sustainable Development and Cities) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would just like to take a few minutes of the parliament’s time to talk about the Military Justice (Interim Measures) Bill (No. 1) 2009 and the Military Justice (Interim Measures) Bill (No. 2) 2009 and to acknowledge the need for responsive action, which the government has taken with the opposition’s support, to deal with the High Court decision concerning the Australian Military Court.

Those with short memories might not be aware of my intimate involvement in the previous government, as the Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence, in seeking to implement in good faith the resolutions of the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade inquiry into military justice and the decisions and responses that were extensively articulated by Senator Hill, as the then defence minister, and by subsequent ministers. An extraordinary amount of work was undertaken to try to achieve faithful implementation of those recommendations. I want to acknowledge the diligence of the members of the Australian Defence Force and the Department of Defence in seeking to find a pathway forward that would respond to the legitimate concerns that arose through the Senate inquiry. They showed the ambition to have a robust system that would not only deal with what in the civilian world some might view as fairly routine disciplinary issues but also deal with more complicated, more sophisticated, crimes.

I must say, I was shaking my head with disbelief at the simplicity with which some people sought to articulate the meaning of the High Court decision—I would characterise it as interpretive overreach. There was a lot of attribution of apparent motive to the High Court decision—and characterisation of the kinds of matters that the Australian Military Court had to deal with. If you actually read through the High Court’s decision—and for those who have trouble sleeping at night, may I recommend that as a low-interventionist way of gaining you sleep—you will find that it does point to the reasons behind the decision. It highlights particularly the parliament’s decision not to stand up the Australian Military Court under chapter 3 of the Constitution. It highlights the particular emphasis that was given to the manner of appointment and to the tenure of the members of the court. It then talks about the extent to which the defence power in the Constitution represents a special position and about the special provisions that take account of the special needs of the military. It then in effect points out some of the stronger characteristics of the Australian Military Court—its efforts to carry forward, wherever appropriate, civilian experience in discipline and the familiarity that many in the public have with that. It then basically makes the argument that, if it looks like, walks like, squawks like a court, it should be a court. I would hate to think that in our haste to deal with the concerns that arose from the High Court decision, we would throw the baby out with the bathwater. In fact, I would hate to think we would throw the bath out.

The Australian Military Court was created with particular objectives in mind, which came from a very rigorous analysis of a lot of data through the inquiry into military justice and then through a very genuine, heartfelt and sincere effort by serving men and women in the Australian Defence Force, the Department of Defence and the government of the day to deal faithfully with those concerns. I am troubled by some people saying this was an affront to the uniformed men and women of Australia, that somehow the military was found out and that the court was going to let the military know what it should do. This sort of nonsensical populist baloney has no place in this discussion. This Australian Military Court was designed to deal with the day-to-day discipline issues that are far removed from any of the concerns that regular civilians would deal with. The fact is that we ask a great deal of our serving men and women, and in return they ask a lot of us. That is because they are asked to do things most of us would never wish to contemplate and do not present ourselves to carry out. To make sure we get the best out of our military, we need the best of all people, and some of the disciplinary requirements of that may appear extremely onerous in the eyes of some.

Even the case that brought forward the High Court appeal—I never knew what ‘teabagging’ was and I am not going to describe it here—was an example of where the offence was not terribly contested; the tactic was to address the court itself. That is fine; that is an option that is available. But for some commentators to be critical of a system that is designed to provide review opportunities and to give meaning and purpose to a disciplinary administrative framework that, in some cases, needs to act very closely—like a court—and to then carry forward all the best of jurisprudence and civilian court knowledge into the military framework to give confidence, certainty and security to a system that deals with anything ranging from basic disciplinary matters to very serious crimes and for them to deduce that this was a shirt front to the serving men and women and the uniform areas of our defence enterprise is just offensive.

Let us deal with the High Court’s decision. Let us recognise that it is saying that, in the court’s eyes, the special powers of defence in the Constitution do not extend to the creation of the Australian Military Court. That is all it says. It does not say the basic architecture is wrong; it points to a deficiency in the power under which it was created. I invite those people who wish to offer commentary on the Australian Military Court to have a look at how it is operating, what it is seeking to achieve and not to get carried away. I heard some commentators say that this is a great opportunity to wind back reform, that there is no need to reform the Australian Military Court. Well, all those people who provided contributions to the military justice inquiry and who are looking for a better system, one of greater certainty and consistency, share my view that there was a need for reform, and I am extremely positive about the contribution that Defence made to enacting that reform.

We have a decision here today, but let us not throw out the bath and the baby with the bathwater with the decision. Let us make sure that these reforms and effort bring about the certainty and the security that our serving men and women deserve, machinery that provides for appropriate review opportunities, and a chance to carry the best practices in the history of the civilian court into the Australian military system where it is appropriate and where it is justified. Let us recognise that the Australian Military Court needs to function not only in the comfortable air-conditioned offices around our capital cities but also in deployable situations to deal with real-life conditions, circumstances and offences and, in some cases, criminality, with all the safeguards that were intended to be put in the legislation.

I lend my support to this stopgap measure, but I ask that it not be a gymnastic effort to throw out all that we have learnt and not be an affront to all those people who have contributed to standing up the Australian Military Court. I think Senator Brandis’s idea of a division of the Federal Court has considerable merit and deserves to be recognised. Let us not be too critical of a system that aimed to bring the best of the civilian jurisprudence and court system into the military framework, recognising a vast spread of demands on this machinery. I can honestly attest to this parliament that the Australian Defence Force was nothing but fully open, fully engaged and fully willing to embrace the insights, learnings and submissions to the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade inquiry. It came forward with a hybrid model that recognised that discipline is crucial but, where it is bordering on criminality and offences, we should bring the best that we know about the administration of law into the military as one way of respecting and treating our most valuable asset in the Australian Defence Force—that is, the men and women of the ADF—even if they may lose their way, whether it be by teabagging or something more serious. Let us not throw the bath and the baby out with the bathwater.

Mike Kelly (Eden-Monaro, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Defence Support) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

in reply—Before I commence summing up the debate, might I also echo the comments of the member for Herbert in welcoming representatives of the Australian Defence Force Parliamentary Exchange Program into the chamber. It is a privilege and a delight to have you in the building and it gives us focus to this debate.

In summing up the debate on the Military Justice (Interim Measures) Bill (No. 1) 2009 and the Military Justice (Interim Measures) Bill (No. 2) 2009, I want to begin by thanking the House for supporting this very important and urgent piece of legislation. On 26 August 2009, the High Court declared that the provisions establishing the Australian Military Court were invalid. The purpose of bill No. 1 is to return to the service tribunal system that existed before the creation of the Australian Military Court. This is, as has been said, an interim measure until the government can legislate for a chapter III court, which it will do as a matter of priority.

To re-establish an effective military justice system, the pre-2007 Defence Force Discipline Act 1982, the DFDA, will be reinstated. These measures will include courts martial and Defence Force magistrates, the positions of Chief Judge Advocate, judge advocates and the Registrar of Military Justice, and reviews and petitions in respect of both summary trials and trials held by courts martial or Defence Force magistrates and reviewing authorities.  Transitional provisions will be inserted into the DFDA to cover all matters that have been referred to the AMC but were not concluded prior to 26 August 2009. The provisions will also address the AMC office holders including, among other things, provisions for their automatic transmission to the relevant positions of Chief Judge Advocate, members of the judge advocates panel and Registrar of Military Justice.

The main object of bill No. 2, as has been discussed, is to maintain the continuity of discipline in the Defence Force in the light of the High Court’s decision. The principal mechanism by which this bill seeks to maintain the continuity of discipline within the ADF is by imposing disciplinary sanctions on persons corresponding to punishments imposed by the AMC and, to the extent necessary, summary authorities in the period between the AMC’s establishment and the declaration of invalidity by the High Court. This bill does not purport to validate any convictions or punishments imposed by the AMC, nor does the bill purport to convict any person of any offence. Rather, the bill, by its own force, purports to impose disciplinary sanctions. The bill does not purport to impose any liability in relation to imprisonment. Further, consistent with the exclusively disciplinary purpose of its provisions, the bill is expressed to have effect for service purposes only. In other words, the bill will not affect an individual ADF member’s civilian rights and entitlements.

The bill recognises that there may be circumstances in which a person affected by a disciplinary liability imposed by the bill wishes to contest whether that liability should remain imposed. The bill gives all affected persons a right to seek review of their case and whether they should remain liable under the act, and the reviewing authority is given power to discharge persons from such liability. In cases where the disciplinary liability imposed by the bill relates to detention, a serious disciplinary measure peculiar to the ADF, the bill requires automatic review by the reviewing authority to determine whether that disciplinary liability should be discharged.

As I have mentioned, the government is in the process of developing, with the intention of introducing the legislation as a matter of priority, options for the establishment of a military justice court that complies with chapter III of the Constitution. I note the comments by the member for Paterson in relation to the difficult constitutional issues that will be posed by this and those that have existed previously; his points about this system needing to be impartial, to be independent and transparent and to render equity and fairness to the members of the ADF were well made. Certainly the government share those sentiments, and we look forward to working with the opposition in crafting an adequate response to deliver an effective disciplinary system to the ADF. I welcome that cooperation.

I note the comments of the member for Herbert about the FMC. I cannot pre-empt what solution we will come to for this matter, but we look forward to working through the options. At the end of the day I recall the comments of the member for Cowan, when he highlighted that whatever justice system is consequent upon our deliberations must be able to operate in a field environment. It must be able to deal with the particular needs of the Australian Defence Force in its unique circumstances and its unique operating environments. I am sure the opposition shares that sentiment.

I conclude by thanking the Defence legal officers, who have responded magnificently in producing these interim measures. No doubt there are also many hard hours of work ahead of them in working with us to provide a solution to this difficult situation. I thank them for their support and commend this package of bills to the House.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.