David Johnston (WA, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I present the first progress report of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Legislation Committee on reforms to Australia’s military justice system, together with the Hansard record of proceedings and documents presented to the committee.

Ordered that the report be printed.

I move:

That the Senate take note of the report.

In supporting the motion, I will say a few things about the current state of military justice, about the response to the 40 recommendations contained in the committee’s report of June 2005, entitled The effectiveness of Australia’s military justice system, and about the committee’s receipt of a review of evidence from departmental officers on the progress of the government’s response to those recommendations. Our report today is entitled Reforms to Australia’s military justice system: first progress report. Every six months the committee intends to have, in the nature of a public hearing, an inquiry or review into the progress of the government’s response to the 2005 report.

The broad aspects of the June 2005 report included the general administration of justice inside the Australian Defence Force, including prosecutions; investigations, particularly by military police; service discipline; whistleblower programs; legal service quality and capability; redress of grievance procedures; conflicts of interest; and procedural fairness, to name just a small part of what the committee came to call military justice in its extensive review of the system.

The government response has been earnest and comprehensive. The Chief of the Defence Force has written to me, as chair of the committee, and disclosed a strong will to address the matters that the committee put on the table back in June 2005. I believe that neither the Chief of the Defence Force nor his chain of command will tolerate the material that gave rise to the term of reference which brought forward the report in June 2005. Nothing that I have seen through the committee’s close surveillance of the ADF indicates that there is anything other than a strong will on the part of the chief and his chain of command to attack and address these issues. However, I must say that time will tell. The Chief of the Defence Force is motivated and, I believe, determined, and I want to take a moment to thank him for his response. It is not easy for senior military officers to take the advice of parliament in some of these areas, and the reforms that we proposed were extensive, sweeping and quite large for the Defence Force to accommodate. So it is a work in progress.

I was very pleased with the quality of the witnesses before the committee: Rear Admiral Marcus Bonser, the head of the Military Justice Implementation Team; Mr Ronald Brent, Deputy Commonwealth Ombudsman; Mr Mark Cunliffe, head of Defence Legal; Mr Geoff Earley, Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force; Lieutenant Colonel James Gaynor, Acting Director of Military Prosecutions; Ms Diane Harris, Acting Director-General of Fairness and Resolution Branch; Air Commodore Simon Harvey, Director-General, ADF Legal Services; and Professor John McMillan, Commonwealth Ombudsman and Defence Force Ombudsman. These people took the time over some three or more hours to come before the committee and account for what they have been doing to address the issues contained in the 2005 report. I took some comfort in the earnestness, energy and determination of those witnesses. But, as I say, it is a work in progress. The six-monthly reviews must, in my respectful opinion, continue. The committee cannot afford to take a backward step in maintaining close surveillance of the performance of the ADF in these areas.

We have seen a triservice police investigative capability audit, which is a very important address of an on-the-ground investigative capacity inside the ADF. I look forward to receiving that audit report. We have seen a permanent military court established and redress of grievance process restructuring for the Fairness and Resolution Branch—a very positive step. The Inspector-General of the ADF was very positive indeed. I must say his movement to focus groups with soldiers, sailors and airmen seems to be an extremely impressive and effective mechanism and must be pursued and maintained.

One final area I want to touch on in the broad area that comes under the umbrella of military justice is cadets. I believe that there is a new will to address the administration and management of under-18-year-old members of the ADF, namely cadets. I think the indications are that the movement is in the right direction and that the right mindsets are being applied to dealing with those problems. The committee in this matter is as one; it is very determined, and I hope people reading these words and the words of other senators on this subject are left in absolutely no doubt that the committee is very determined to maintain a very strong process of surveillance. It intends to drive the reforms that are evident on the surface in the Australian Defence Force with respect to military justice. The committee is as one and is determined, and I trust that the departmental officials that I have named are—and they appear to be—as determined as the committee to do the right thing here.

So that the bodies and agencies will continue, in my respectful submission, to come under close scrutiny by the management and administration of the Director of Military Prosecutions, we will consult widely and deliberately with the Inspector-General of the ADF. The military police agency will be under great scrutiny, particularly the development and reform of their investigative capability. The offices of the Chief Judge Advocate and the Registrar of Military Justice are vital and important to the administration of military justice in the ADF, as are the head of trial counsel and the alternate dispute resolution agency and that agency’s administration.

We had a public hearing on 19 June. There will be many more such public hearings. The committee is very determined. I want to thank Admiral Bonser for the way in which he came to the committee, gave his evidence and administered the witnesses, and the way in which we were given the necessary information and advice on the progress of this very important subject.

On the general findings, I was pleased with the nature of the response and with the initiatives and reforms put in place in response to the 2005 report. The caveat that I would put on the table is that these are simply signposts. I do not believe the end destination has been achieved; we have not arrived at that but are still on the way. No relaxation or comfort can be taken from the reforms until a period of time has expired such that precedent determines that there has been real reform in the ADF. As I say, I am happy with the direction and I think the committee is broadly happy with the direction; but we are as one in saying that determination and surveillance must be maintained, and I believe that the committee will be maintaining strong surveillance of the ADF on these issues.

I want to thank the committee secretariat for the ongoing work they do on some of these issues. I am talking about sudden deaths and a whole host of very grief-stricken aspects of life in the ADF. The objective of the Australian Defence Force is to fight and win. With 55,000 service personnel there are going to be issues. We have the obligation to see that those issues are resolved as fairly, properly and justiciably as possible. It is a work in progress.