Warren Snowdon (Lingiari, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Defence Science and Personnel) Share this | Hansard source

But at least I admitted it. I again thank all those speakers. The Defence Legislation Amendment Bill 2008 recognises, perhaps a bit belatedly, that military personnel should have the same rights and protections as ordinary citizens. They should be protected by similar processes, recognising at the same time that military discipline must not be undermined.

The Military Court and the Director of Military Prosecution are now in place and independent of the chain of command. These are important fundamental reforms that were recommended by the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee in its report of 2005. We also have some genesis in numerous other reviews, not least of which by Mr Burchett QC, Justice Abadee and parliamentary inquiries. The path has always been tortuous, but I think it is fair to say that there is unanimity in this place about the necessity for these changes. I again record my appreciation for the support of the opposition, bearing in mind that it was an initiative of the previous government in the first instance. We believe that, with this body of reform, the shortcomings of the military justice system that were identified by the committee will be overcome. The reforms will be underpinned by transparent, independent and fair processes. We also hope that, as a result of new fairness and independence, much of the behavioural problems at the base of past breaches will also be removed.

But there is more to do than this, and we acknowledge that. While we must be practical and recognise the realities of military discipline and its effectiveness in the field, there has been a traditional culture in some quarters which has not been conducive to better practice. Getting the balance right is therefore very important. For those who rue the loss of the old system, which was based on the old attitude of ‘march the guilty one in’, let me say that, unless this culture is diluted, the military’s image will continue to suffer. Australians, particularly young Australians—the notorious generation Y—have unprecedented choices in their careers these days and their interest in military service hinges on incentives and other attractions. I say that this equally applies to the administrative system for the handling of grievances. The process of military justice must be independent and beyond question. It must be fair and transparent and it must be seen to deliver justice expeditiously without undermining military discipline in any way. It may be true that it is more cumbersome, less efficient and more expensive than the old system but we make no apologies for that. In a democratic society, military personnel, like other citizens, have rights and in future those rights will be better protected.

In conclusion, the additional clarity we have sought to apply to the rules of evidence in this bill, as opposed to the bill’s lapsed predecessor, is an attempt to get the balance right. We do recognise the need to be practical about minimising legality. We recognise that discipline in the field must be ready and uncomplicated but, at the same time, some of the basic principles of gathering evidence ought to be instinctive and should be based on some very important principles. There are checks in the system—we know that—but we would rather get the evidence better the first time, if only for the sake of efficiency, to avoid delays and to reduce the consequential impact of mistakes on ADF personnel. I will address the amendment in the consideration in detail stage. I thank all those who contributed to this debate, and I commend the bill to the House.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

See this speech in context