Anne McEwen (SA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Pursuant to order and at the request of the chairs of the respective committees, except the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Committee, I present reports on the examination of annual reports tabled by 30 April 2008.

Ordered that the reports be printed.

Mark Bishop (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move:

That the Senate take note of the report of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee.

In taking note of the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade report on annual reports I want to pass a few brief comments on the contents of chapter 1 of that report. I do so in the context of ongoing efforts by this government—continuing a lot of the work commenced over the last two or three years by the previous government—to reform Australia’s military justice system within the Australian Defence Force. As I said, that reform program, commenced some years ago under the auspices of Senator Hill when he was the minister and continued under successive ministers, has made a quite significant contribution to reform. It is important, though, that the gains made to date are not lost, that teething problems are identified early and remedied promptly, and that the reform momentum continues in ongoing years.

What is the key element to that ongoing momentum? The key is that independence, transparency, accountability and scrutiny are critical to building public trust—public trust in the system and in the maintenance of its integrity. In this regard, I want to briefly pass some comments on the annual reports of the Chief Military Judge of the Australian Military Court, the Director of Military Prosecutions and the Judge Advocate General, who pursue different but complementary roles in oversighting various reforms that have been instituted within the military justice system as it applies to the Australian Defence Force. These three statutory officers have used their independence, experience, expertise and professional objectivity to comment freely and authoritatively, it must be said, on matters central to achieving a fair and effective military justice system.

For example, the Chief Military Judge of the Australian Military Court drew attention to a number of practical difficulties encountered with the operation of the AMC, including the increasing demand for resources. The report also suggested measures to improve the system, including refinements to recent legislation that would address issues of juror protection or misconduct by military jurors. The Director of Military Prosecutions used her annual report to speak quite frankly and quite openly about her concerns regarding the perceived independence of the Director of Military Prosecutions, as well as other matters affecting the operation of her office, such as the availability of staff. In particular, the DMP showed how the office could be an effective monitor of the standard of the ADF’s investigative capability. In that context, it should be noted that the ADF’s investigative capability has come under quite justified serious and sustained criticism for many years. Indeed, it is the subject of ongoing frank criticism.

Through his annual report, the Judge Advocate General similarly identified what he regarded as matters needing to be rectified through legislation. He also noted developments in overseas military justice systems. The committee, in its report, welcomes and supports the proactive stances of the Chief Military Judge of the Australian Military Court, the Director of Military Prosecutions, and the Judge Advocate General in using their annual report to improve the overall function and accountability of the military justice system. Those reports provide the necessary visibility and oversight of the ADF’s discipline system; provide independent and expert systemic insight into the operation of the military justice system; through their independence, provide impartiality and professional standing and confer credibility on the system; identify and issue early warning signals of problems in the discipline system, including any teething problems; make considered recommendations on how the system could be improved or problems remedied; and, most importantly, keep the government and the parliament appraised of any shortfalls in necessary funding or staffing for Australia’s military justice system.

Without doubt, their independent and critical voices are vital to the health of the system. They clearly demonstrate the value of having strong independent oversight of Australia’s military justice system, and the reporting regime that has been established is indeed critical to the ongoing functioning of the military justice system. So we currently have three independent arms, if you like: the annual report of the Chief Military Judge of the Australian Military Court, the annual report of the Director of Military Prosecutions and the annual report of the Judge Advocate General.

Because of continued publicity about and interest in ongoing reform of the military justice system, it is fair to say that a range of Commonwealth offices are maintaining a watch on the activities of the military. It is fair to say that there has been significant institutional reform. It is also correct to identify the fact that additional resources have been allocated by successive governments to ensure that permanent change in terms of the administration and functioning of military justice within the Defence Force is achieved.

We really are now at the tipping point, and a lot of the earlier mainstream and critical problems have been attended to, have been remedied, and one presumes that legislation passed in more recent years is going to attend to them permanently and into the future. What is now emerging, though, are concerns that the vigour of independence might become not as vigorous as it has been—hence the continuing assurances that are required by the provision of annual reports to the parliament on the operations of the military justice system from a cross-section of different viewpoints so that one gets a total picture of what is going on. The annual report under discussion clearly brings that to the attention of the parliament, and I commend it to the Senate.

Question agreed to.