CONCLUSION 1: ADF discipline processes provide greater transparency and more robust safeguards, compared with administrative processes, contributing to higher levels of fairness and confidence in the military justice system.
RECOMMENDATION 1: Where conduct may disclose a Defence Force Discipline Act 1982 offence, the ADF consider discipline action in the first instance.
NOTE: The Defence Force Discipline Amendment (RCDVS Implementation and Related Measures No. 1) Bill 2026 [hyperlink added] is consistent with the intent of this recommendation. The Bill intends, among other measures, to create a ‘summary contravention scheme’ to enable minor disciplinary matters to be addressed more efficiently without compromising fairness. Defence Force Discipline Amendment (RCDVS Implementation and Related Measures No. 1) Bill 2026, Explanatory Memorandum, para 2.
CONCLUSION 2: Involuntary termination of service is confronting for ADF members and may give rise to concerns of unfairness if it is perceived to be arbitrarily applied. Decisions to end an ADF member’s service on the basis that it is not in the interests of the Defence Force should therefore be initiated and finalised consistently and at appropriate levels to maintain fairness and confidence in the military justice system. While unit commanders must retain operational discretion as to whether particular members should serve under their command, they should not have authority to use the potential termination of ADF service as a means of leverage over personnel.
RECOMMENDATION 2: The Chief of the Defence Force withdraw commanding officers’ delegations to initiate termination of an ADF member’s service on the grounds that their service is not in the interests of the Defence Force.
CONCLUSION 3: The use of the terms ‘dismissal’ in disciplinary processes and ‘termination’ and ‘early end of service’ in administrative processes, to describe essentially the same outcome, create confusion and undermines confidence in the military justice system. This confusion is reinforced, and gives rise to a perception of ‘double jeopardy’, when an ADF member’s service is involuntarily administratively terminated or ended early after a Service tribunal declines to impose a punishment of ‘dismissal’ following a discipline trial.
RECOMMENDATION 3: Relevant legislation and policy be amended to harmonise the terms ‘dismissal’, ‘termination’ and ‘early end of service’.
CONCLUSION 4: Administrative termination of an ADF member’s service following discipline proceedings that considered but did not impose a punishment of dismissal leads to perceptions of ‘double jeopardy’ and injustice.
RECOMMENDATION 4: Relevant legislation be amended to require courts martial and Defence Force magistrates, where dismissal is available as a punishment option, to:
• consider and determine whether dismissal is an appropriate punishment and provide written reasons for that determination
• consider submissions from the relevant Service before imposing punishment.
Relevant legislation be further amended to preclude the ADF from subsequently administratively terminating a member’s service solely on the same factual basis.
NOTE: The Defence Force Discipline Amendment (RCDVS Implementation and Related Measures No. 1) Bill 2026 proposes changes Part IV (Punishments and orders) of the Defence Force Discipline Act. In the case of a court martial, it would be the judge advocate who would be required to take action under Part IV. The judge advocate would be required to provide reasons for each punishment or order imposed. A Defence Force magistrate is already required to provide reasons for action taken under Part IV.
CONCLUSION 5: ADF members, especially inexperienced personnel, may be vulnerable to injustice associated with the disciplinary infringement process. This is in contrast to other discipline proceedings that include mandatory protective factors, such as defending officers.
RECOMMENDATION 5: Relevant legislation and policy be amended to mandate that an infringed member choose a reasonably available advocate to assist them through all parts of a disciplinary infringement process.
CONCLUSION 6: Limited understanding and situational pressure during the discipline infringement process can lead some ADF members to make ill‑considered elections with lasting consequences. They may be susceptible to pressure to choose an option, irrespective of their actual culpability, that suits their own or their chain of command’s administrative convenience. Requiring ADF members to provide reasons when electing to have an infringement dealt with by a discipline officer would help ensure the decision is informed and voluntary, and uphold the integrity of the process.
RECOMMENDATION 6: Relevant policy be amended to mandate that an infringed member give reasons in writing for their election to have their infringement dealt with by a discipline officer.
CONCLUSION 7: The lack of clear and consistent time limits on the use of infringement records creates uncertainty for ADF members, may fuel perceptions of unfairness in career management, and may lead to inequitable outcomes. A longer, fixed retention period would reduce inconsistency, improve transparency, and address the potential unfairness of the current arrangements.
RECOMMENDATION 7: Relevant law and policy be amended to prohibit accessing or using infringement records after a period of 24 months.
CONCLUSION 8: Current Military Police evidence‑gathering powers are outdated and can frustrate,impede, or unnecessarily prolong investigations. This undermines confidence in the military justice system and can create perceptions among both victims and alleged offenders that processes are weaponised against them. Harmonising Military Police investigative powers with those of civilian police would enable the effective investigation of all offences involving ADF members in Australia and overseas. Enhanced powers would improve efficiency, reduce perceptions of weaponisation arising from ineffective investigations, and better align evidence-gathering powers with community expectations.
RECOMMENDATION 8: Relevant legislation be amended to harmonise Military Police powers (including investigative powers, powers of entry, search and seizure powers and use of force powers) with those of the Australian Federal Police.
NOTE: The Defence and Veterans’ Service Commission will be conducting an inquiry into military sexual violence in the ADF, as recommended by the Royal Commission. The Royal Commission recommended that an examination of Military Police investigative powers ought to be an aspect of that inquiry.
CONCLUSION 9: Existing arrangements for sharing evidence between military and civilian proceedings can prevent the admission of relevant evidence when it is collected by a different investigative body. This can weaken confidence in the military justice system. Where these limitations prevent prosecutors from adducing lawfully-obtained evidence, or are exploited by accused persons and their counsel, victims may perceive that evidence laws are weaponised against them to avoid accountability.
RECOMMENDATION 9: Relevant legislation be amended to confirm that evidence collected by the Australian Federal Police during an investigation is, subject to the usual rules of admissibility of evidence, prima facie admissible in Defence Force Discipline Act proceedings and that evidence collected by Military Police is likewise prima facie admissible in civilian criminal court proceedings.
NOTE: The Defence Force Discipline Amendment (RCDVS Implementation and Related Measures No. 1) Bill 2026 would change who is an ‘investigating officer’ for the purposes of the Defence Force Discipline Act, which would include the ability to appoint a civilian to be an ‘investigating officer’. The Bill would also permit an ‘investigating officer’ to disclose certain investigation information to, among others, the ADF or a state or territory police force.
CONCLUSION 10: Certain legislative and procedural constraints can unnecessarily delay the timely collection of relevant evidence for subsequent proceedings. Such delays risk undermining confidence in the military justice system by creating perceptions among victims and alleged offenders that the process is being used against them rather than to ensure fairness.
RECOMMENDATION 10: Relevant legislation and policy be amended to remove impediments, including criteria specifying rank or gender limitations, to the gathering of evidence by Military Police, provided that appropriate safeguards are implemented.
NOTE: The Defence Force Discipline Amendment (RCDVS Implementation and Related Measures No. 1) Bill 2026 seeks to remove certain gender-based language from the current investigation provisions of the Defence Force Discipline Act.
CONCLUSION 11: The legislative reform proposal to expand the circumstances in which removal orders can be made, following conviction of a service offence, is supported. However, current provisions relating to the seizure, retention and handling of electronic devices and imagery may result in unintended adverse consequences for ADF members, particularly where personal electronic devices are removed from a member’s possession for extended periods. Smart devices now play a central role in accessing financial and health services, as well as contacting sources of wellbeing and support.
RECOMMENDATION 11: Relevant legislation be amended to expand the circumstances in which removal orders may be imposed following conviction for a service offence. Defence review whether existing legislative and policy settings governing the retention of seized devices during investigations appropriately balance investigative needs, victims’ interests, and the reasonable needs of ADF members under investigation.
NOTE: The Defence Force Discipline Amendment (RCDVS Implementation and Related Measures No. 1) Bill 2026 seeks to extend the existing power to issue removal orders so that it applies not only to cyber bullying offences, but also to any service offences involving the provision of intimate images of another person via social media or electronic services.
CONCLUSION 12: Receiving a Notice to Show Cause can be highly confronting, particularly where termination of service is contemplated. ADF members may be vulnerable to actual and perceived injustice in adverse administrative action processes if they have limited understanding of relevant procedures, rights and safeguards. Current policies for appointing support officers are inconsistent across the Services, and the role is largely confined to facilitating communication with the chain of command. Greater alignment between the support provided to an accused person in Defence Force Discipline Act proceedings and that available to an ADF member issued with a Notice to Show Cause is therefore desirable. Providing reasonable access to an advocate of the ADF member’s choosing may enhance both actual fairness and perceptions of fairness.
RECOMMENDATION 12: Relevant policy be amended to mandate that all ADF members receiving a Notice to Show Cause choose a reasonably available advocate to assist them.
CONCLUSION 13: Legal reviews are routinely conducted in practice before finalising administrative termination decisions. However, the absence of a mandated review process may limit their effectiveness as a consistent protective measure for ADF members.
RECOMMENDATION 13: Relevant policy be amended to require that all administrative involuntary termination of service decisions be subject to a legal review prior to finalisation and implementation of the decision.
CONCLUSION 14: Current fact finding processes are no longer fit for purpose. Fact finding processes routinely become protracted and overly formalised, causing avoidable harm to ADF members and reinforcing perceptions of injustice and weaponisation.
RECOMMENDATION 14: Fact finding be abolished and replaced with a revised Quick Assessments process as the preferred Defence-wide initial incident decision support tool.
CONCLUSION 15: Suspension of ADF members under the disciplinary and administrative systems is not aligned, so far as presumption of pay is concerned, and can result in disproportionate and avoidable harm to ADF members.
RECOMMENDATION 15: Relevant legislation and policy be amended so that the default position for all administrative and disciplinary suspensions is that ADF members continue to be paid. Suspension without pay should only be imposed in exceptional circumstances.
CONCLUSION 16: The timely provision of clear, specific and accessible information on military justice processes, beyond that provided in the Defence Charter for Military Justice Proceedings, is essential to building trust, reducing uncertainty, and supporting affected or interested ADF members.
RECOMMENDATION 16: A brief fact sheet outlining ADF members’ rights, obligations, major milestones and available support measures be developed and provided at the earliest opportunity to all complainants, respondents and other witnesses involved in military justice processes.
CONCLUSION 17: Feedback to the Inquiry demonstrated that the PM008 form and process has become discredited in the eyes of a significant portion of ADF members. In particular, its association with suitability assessments for continued service in the ADF has entrenched stigma, mistrust and perceptions of misuse.
RECOMMENDATION 17: The current Form PM008 – Referral for a Mental Health/Psychological Assessment and Management Advice be abolished and replaced with 2 distinct policy-based processes, namely a clinical assessment and an organisational assessment. Neither process should be instituted or used to assess suitability for retention in the ADF.
CONCLUSION 18: Inadequate guidance on the appropriate use of Records of Conversation has led to misunderstanding and misuse, thereby reinforcing mistrust and perceptions among some ADF members that Records of Conversation function as a precursor to arbitrary administrative action.
RECOMMENDATION 18: Defence-wide policy guidance on the purpose, use and implementation of the Record of Conversation be developed. Such guidance must explicitly state that Records of Conversation are not to be used as a threat or as a form of administrative sanction.
CONCLUSION 19: Declining levels of integrated discipline, administrative and complaint-handling training have contributed to the degradation of skills and reduced confidence. This limits the use of military justice processes in an effective, flexible and coordinated manner.
RECOMMENDATION 19: Defence re-establish mandatory, competency-based, integrated discipline, administrative and complaint-handling training as a pre-requisite for promotion at every level.
CONCLUSION 20: The deliberate weaponisation, abuse or misuse of military justice processes undermines discipline and can cause serious harm. Stronger sanctions are therefore required to both address such conduct and deter others. The current offence of prejudicing the discipline of the ADF is a minor offence, with a maximum penalty of three months’ imprisonment, which is insufficient to reflect the seriousness of this behaviour.
RECOMMENDATION 20: Relevant legislation be amended to increase the maximum penalty for theoffence of prejudicing the discipline of the ADF to 12 months’ imprisonment.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments are subject to moderation and must be submitted under your real name. Anonymous comments will not be posted (even though the form seems to permit them).